Sitting of 5 June 1991

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

    Car Exports
    Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of exports of the British car industry in 1990 and 1989.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): Last year 414,000 cars were exported from the United Kingdom compared with 339,000 cars in the previous year. That represents an increase of 22 per cent.
    Mr. Wardle: Does not the recent export success of the automotive industry point the way for other manufacturers to follow, by switching more capacity from home to export markets? Is not it likely that by the mid-1990s car assembly in the United Kingdom will be well over 2 million vehicles? Would not the greatest threat to that success story be a recurrence of inflation or, worse still, a reversion to Labour's interventionist policies?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right on all counts. In the first four months of this year exports of cars were 101 per cent. up on those of the previous year. That is certainly an example to other industries. With regard to future developments, it is marvellous news that the decline in the car industry that went on for so long under the Labour Government has now been reversed, and we expect to be net exporters by the end of the year.
    Mr. Hoyle: What representations has the Secretary of State, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer had from the motor industry about the state of the home market? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that sales are down and the car industry is facing real difficulties as a result? That is all because of the Government's economic policy, especially on interest charges and the rest. When will the right hon. Gentleman press his colleagues to help the motor industry to establish itself at home as well as overseas?
    Mr. Lilley: The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I met the leaders of the car industry, and naturally, they were concerned about the decline in domestic demand for cars, but I could congratulate them on their good achievement in diverting production into exports, so that production in this country has been running at record levels.
    Mr. Madel: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that all European Community countries are playing by the same rules on what is allowed to attract overseas investment into the EC motor industry? Is he satisfied that the German Government are playing by the same rules in attracting investment in what was East Germany? Will he ask Sir Leon Brittan, as the competition Commissioner, to consider the matter?
    Mr. Lilley: We keep that matter under constant review, especially with regard to the East German issue, which I shall take up, as my hon. Friend asks. It is important for us that British manufactured cars of Japanese marques are given free access throughout the Community. We are absolutely adamant that they shall have free circulation throughout the Community—[Interruption.]—despite the apparent resistance of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on current levels of manufacturing output.
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the state of manufacturing industry.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The index of manufacturing output in the first quarter of 1991 was 113·4. This was 1 per cent. lower than the previous quarter, but 17 per cent. higher than the average for 1980.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister aware that 100,000 manufacturing jobs in Britain are dependent on ICI? Is he aware that 4,000 people, including many of my constituents, are directly employed by ICI, and that last year Hanson spent £34 million on research, while ICI spent £500 million? Is the Minister aware of any other European Government who would stand idly by while the fate of such a company was determined by the rules of the casino?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I was aware of all the hon. Gentleman's early points, but I must differ from him on his last point, because there is no bid or anything like a bid on the table.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of great concern that manufacturing output has risen by only 3 per cent. since March 1973—18 years ago? Will he confirm that in the 18 years prior to that date manufacturing output rose by about 70 per cent? How does he account for the poor performance in recent years?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that performance has been poor in recent years. Indeed, the performance of manufacturing industry during the 1980s was outstanding compared with its rather dismal performance during the 1970s. Manufacturing output in the first quarter of this year was 17 per cent. higher than in 1980 and productivity was 56 per cent. higher. That is commendable.
    Mr. Beith: Is it the Department's view, as well as that of the Prime Minister, that small manufacturing firms are getting a raw deal from the banks? If so, why is the Minister's Department not taking the initiative by

    261
    referring the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, instead of simply bringing in bank chairmen for a chat?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be sensible to ascertain the facts rather than seek to take action upon allegations or anecdotal evidence alone.
    Mr. Cran: Is my hon. Friend aware that Britain's biggest manufacturing company, British Aerospace, is based in my constituency? In view of the tripe that we sometimes hear from the Opposition on the subject of manufacturing, will my hon. Friend explain to them why British Aerospace had a record year last year in terms of profits which amounted to £376 million, a record year in terms of turnover with new orders amounting to £10·8 billion, and why this year's order book is also at the record level of £11·8 billion?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I congratulate my hon. Friend on praising the performance of a particular British firm, because all too often we hear nothing from the Labour party but the running down and denigrating of industry and complaints about its performance. Perhaps the reasons for the success of British Aerospace, to which my hon. Friend referred, are related to its increases in productivity during the 1980s, to which I referred in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox).
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the Minister now accept that, in addition to all the other problems that British manufacturing industry faces, any possible takeover of ICI will have huge consequences because every year ICI spends 17 times as much on research and development as the Hanson Trust? Will the Minister now stop evading the question and make the Conservative party's view clear? Is it opposed to a hostile Hanson takeover of ICI?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is for once jumping to conclusions instead of rattling off statistics. Perhaps he should have regard to the Government's legal responsibilities and wait until something happens that could give rise to a reference.

    Industrial Winners
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from British business about the Government's role in picking industrial winners.
    The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): The Government have received a policy document from the Confederation of British Industry, "Competing in the new Europe". That document would be important to the training and education of Opposition Members. It makes it very clear that the policies of the 1970s pursued by the Labour party, of intervention and massive investment in things that went wrong, are the last thing that this country now needs to carry on the revival of its manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend not find it incredible that people are still looking back to the 1960s and 1970s when drafting political policy documents? Does he agree that considerable research has now established that it is competition within the economy that creates winning
    262
    businesses, and that a policy of picking industrial winners is like going into a sweet shop and picking sweets from large jars containing many sweets of different colours, in that one does not always get the colour that one expects? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a ludicrous policy?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. The Labour party lost thousands of millions of pounds when it had the chance of steering the country's industrial policy. It was a disaster, with lost jobs, lost opportunities and large amounts of lost money. British Leyland—Rover alone lost £2,750 million and there were massive losses in the steel industry. That has been reversed by privatisation and by policies based on competition and sensible Government support for business. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set that policy out well in his speeches. Opposition Members should take up their training in industry by reading them.
    Mr. James Lamond: Will the Minister look a little closer to the present day—from 1979 to 1990? He will find that more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the north-west of England alone and that another 74,000 jobs will be lost this year. If he is picking winners, why does he not do something about the multi-fibre arrangement to try to protect jobs in the textile industry?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the argument. The Government are not trying to pick winners; that is industry's job. The Government are creating a climate and framework in which industry can flourish. Many thousands of new jobs have been created in the 1980s. Naturally, there has been industrial change because technologies, products and customer requirements change, but it is the Government's policies and not those of the Labour party, that will continue the manufacturing revival of the 1980s into the 1990s.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that ICI has proved to be an industrial winner for this country and that its future is important for its 53,000 workers and the 4,700 who work for its pharmaceutical division in my constituency? Will he assure me that all aspects of the national interest will be taken into account if a hostile bid is made for that strategically important company by Hanson plc?
    Mr. Redwood: I am sure that my hon. Friend will speak eloquently, should there be any action of the kind that he describes. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with his competition responsibilities, will consider all representations, should the need arise, and respond in the right way, given the powers of the European Community and the British Government.
    Ms. Mowlam: The Minister has just stated that the Government are interested in setting the climate for businesses to flourish. I am sure that he would include in that small businesses. On "The Parliament Programme" at 12 o'clock he said, "The DTI has arranged"—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Paraphrase please.
    Ms. Mowlam: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said that the DTI had arranged meetings throughout the country with banks and small businesses to facilitate the discussion of problems that small businesses are facing with the current bank rate. Several small businesses that

    263
    are concerned about the difficulties have contacted me. I wanted to inform them where the meetings were being held, so I contacted DTI regional offices, but they had no record of the meetings. I contacted the Bank of England regional offices, but of those only one office organises such meetings on a day-to-day basis. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Forum of Private Business and other voluntary organisations have no record of the meetings. Will the Minister tell us where they are to be held, because small businesses want to know?
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the regional offices to arrange such meetings and they will take place. The hon. Lady should tell the interested companies to get in touch with DTI regional offices, which are there to serve the business community. The meetings will do just that—they will provide a forum for an exchange of views between the banks, the DTI and other interested parties.
    Sir Robert McCrindle: Although it is riot the Government's job to pick industrial winners—clearly that is correct—does the Minister agree that banks that are exerting undue pressure on small businesses during the current recession may be acting to their own disadvantage because among the small businesses that face difficulties today there may be the industrial winners of tomorrow? In the discussions will Ministers draw to the attention of the joint stock banks the desirability of thinking carefully before exerting the squeeze on small businesses that appears to be happening now?
    Mr. Redwood: Naturally, the banks should think of their long-term business interests, but it is for individual banks to assess the risks of each case. The Government expect to see interest rates falling on average for the corporate sector as base rates fall. If special circumstances exist in some cases, there may be a risk-premium charge. My hon. Friend is also right that it would not be desirable for banks to make life so difficult for many companies that there is not a large volume of corporate business for them in future.

    Reeve Burgess
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will meet representatives of the work force of Reeve Burgess to discuss the setting up of a co-operative for the manufacture of coaches in the constituency of Bolsover.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): I have no plans at present to meet representatives of the work force of Reeve Burgess to discuss the setting up of a co-operative.
    Mr. Skinner: The Minister should be ashamed of himself. Reeve Burgess is a company which manufactures buses and coaches. It is a winner, with profits of £60,000 again this April. The chances are that in May its profits will be roughly that amount. Orders are still coming in. That factory would continue, were it not for the Government's inflationary policy and asset stripping by Plaxton. If the Government can find money to bale out Rover and British Aerospace and to take those companies' troubles off their hands, they have a duty to find the money
    264
    for the 180 workers at Reeve Burgess so that they can keep their 100-year-old factory going. Will the Minister pull his finger out and get something done?
    Mr. Leigh: Although the closure is regretted, it is part of a rationalisation of bus manufacturing capacity by the parent company, Plaxton. Production is to be transferred to its parent plant at Scarborough. I notice that the hon. Gentleman's original question laid great stress on the need to set up a co-operative to deal with that problem. Has he forgotten the lessons of co-operatives in the 1970s? Scottish Daily News ate its way through £1·2 million of taxpayers' money, Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering ate its way through £4·2 million of public money, and Meriden ate its way through £15 million of public money. I hope that Opposition Front-Bench Members will take this opportunity to say that they reject the neanderthal political thinking represented by Bolsover man, which represents the concepts of the 1970s on co-operatives and Bennery in all its guises.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Dickens, but the question must be about Bolsover.
    Mr. Dickens: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has reminded the House that, under the Labour Government, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money was given to co-operatives and never repaid. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is far better to leave those matters to the private sector than to sink taxpayers' money into co-operatives?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am still waiting to hear whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will use this opportunity to say that he rejects the failed policies of the 1970s. Those policies have failed before and will fail again.

    Kuwait
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the follow-up of his official visit to Kuwait.
    Mr. Lilley: Since my visit the known value of contracts won by British companies in Kuwait has risen from about £70 million to at least £181 million. The Kuwaiti British Fire Group has signed an agreement with the Kuwait Oil company to survey the damage to the Sabriyah oilfield. The Government have continued to support the City's proposals for the administration of compensation claims.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the task of trying to put out the resource-consuming, earth-polluting, cancer-giving 700 plus oil fires in Kuwait, are not small British firms disadvantaged in relation to their American counterparts by not getting the financial guarantees that the Americans enjoy?
    Mr. Lilley: Certainly not. We have done all that we can to put large companies in touch with small companies with innovative ideas, and to put those ideas directly to the Kuwaiti authorities. The Americans are jealous of our actions to ensure that British companies have a lead in getting business in Kuwait, and there have been complaints in the American press that the American Government have not been as helpful as we have in this

    265
    matter. We have received many thanks and much support from British industry for the upfront way in which we have approached the issue.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, because of the unique experience gained in the North sea, British companies are in a strong position to exploit the opportunities that exist today in Kuwait? Will he also confirm that the British are held in high regard in Kuwait and it is the combination of those two factors that are making the Americans envious?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is good news that the Kuwaiti British Fire Group, which I think includes Scottish interests as well as those from the rest of the United Kingdom, has won the contract, which could lead to extensive work in Kuwait. I pay tribute to it for its efforts on that front.

    Machine Tools Technologies Association
    Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Machine Tools Technologies Association to discuss the recession in industry.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Machine Tools Technologies Association to discuss the recession in industry.
    Mr. Redwood: My noble Friend the industry Minister has recently invited the Machine Tools Technologies Association to a meeting. I hope that it will take up that offer. I am sure that there is much to talk about.
    Mr. Buckley: When the Minister meets the MTTA, will he take into account its 1991 spring report in which it expresses fears about the Government's tough, monetary policy, which has thrown an unnecessary burden onto the manufacture of machine tools? That will have an effect on the future upturn that may take place in British industry. Will that mean that the British machine tools industry will be incapable of meeting the demand? Will the Secretary of State take into account the number of changes in the Department of Trade and Industry which mean that manufacturing industry has no great influence on or interest in the Government's attitude?
    Mr. Redwood: The Government are most interested in the future performance of manufacturing industry and give it every sensible support to achieve good performance. I have the report to which, I think, the hon. Gentleman referred. I am pleased to see that it says that in 1990 exports reached 50 per cent. of total production, which shows how much more competitive the industry is now than it was some years ago. It goes on to say that British machine tool technology leads the world in many important sectors and lists a series of important spares in which it does so. The Government welcome that and will give the industry support. The Minister for Trade met the industry's association at the end of last year to encourage the industry to export more. That is the sort of support that we shall continue to give the industry.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware of the other report of the Machine Tools Technologies Association on industrial trends, which shows that we are investing less in manufacturing and machine tools than we
    266
    were in 1979, that the manufacturing base is being eroded and that orders for that industry are decreasing faster than at any time since the second world war? At its meeting with the Government, the industry's association will want to know what positive steps the Government will take to help the industry. Will the Minister tell the House now?
    Mr. Redwood: As I have already mentioned, the Government are keen to help the industry with the promotion of exports, which is its biggest sales sector and is, I believe, extremely competitive. The value of industrial advice from a former chief executive of Meriden is not so sure. Naturally, the MTTA will discuss a wide range of issues with my noble Friend the Minister for Industry, who will do whatever he can within our policies to provide the necessary assistance. We are not returning to backing winners because that would mean backing the wrong ones and, losing a lot of money for the taxpayer, which would make the economy worse, not better.
    Mr. Burt: Bearing in mind that today there are more jobs in manufacturing in Britain than in France and Italy, does my hon. Friend agree that talk of our manufacturing industry's decline and death is premature? Will he and other Ministers in the Department do their best to ensure, both by rhetoric and conduct, that people who work in manufacturing industry believe that they and their companies are as important to the Government as anyone who works in the City?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree. I, too, was proud to work in manufacturing industry for a period and I know what an important contribution it makes to our wealth generation. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are many manufacturing success stories of which we should be proud. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about the revival of the motor industry in answer to an earlier question. The machine tools industry is doing great things in changing its design, pattern of sales and products. That is true of many other manufacturing industries, and we intend to create the conditions in which that revival can take place.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that we are all impressed by trade associations and their abilities—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to stop this bantering across the Chamber.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend consider—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It does not matter to me, Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition act like idiots—so it should not worry you.
    These trade associations are important in respect of exports, but does my hon. Friend agree that if they are to prosper abroad it would have been more encouraging for British industry if the new Moscow trade centre had been built by a British firm, not a French one? Does he think that the French or the Germans would have allowed their trade centres in Moscow to be built by the British? I think not. That is one of the reasons why they are more successful than we are: they support their people while we sometimes throw ours to the wolves.
    Mr. Redwood: It is also necessary to submit the lowest bid to win competitions. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade would have been delighted if the lower bid had come from a British company and I will ensure that he writes to my hon. Friend about any other matters that may be relevant in this case.
    Mr. Henderson: The machine tool industry will be pleased to know that the Minister has read its recent report, but has he read yesterday's announcement that new orders in that industry are down 46 per cent. in the first quarter of this year compared with last year? Does he accept that the machine tool industry is an accurate barometer of what is happening in the rest of the economy? If so, does he agree that this is yet more damning evidence of the industrial damage being done to this country?
    Mr. Redwood: Manufacturing investment was very high in the 1980s, particularly in the latter years of that decade. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right: there was some decline in orders at the beginning of this year, for domestic purposes, because the economy is weak at the moment, as he well knows. That is why I stress the importance of export markets accounting now for more than half the sales of the industry. We can give considerable support for that effort, and as the recovery gets under way in the United Kingdom domestic orders will of course increase.

    Past Office
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to lift the Post Office letter monopoly.
    Mr. Leigh: The Post Office's letter monopoly is a privilege, not a right. While we keep the options under review, we have no present plans to alter the scope of the letter monopoly, although in the event of a cessation or serious disruption to the letter service we would consider suspending it. The Government remain fully commit ted to the existence of a nationwide letter service with an affordable, uniform tariff structure, available to everyone, including those in rural areas.
    Mr. Brown: When my hon. Friend gets back to his office at the DTI will he open his top drawer in which, when serving as a PPS to his predecessor, I recall leaving a copy of a document published by the No Turning Back group, entitled "Choice and Responsibility"? It was co-authored by my hon. Friend and myself and by a large number of our other colleagues last July. I commend to my hon. Friend the words on page 14, where we wrote:
    "The Post Office monopoly can no longer be justified."
    Mr. Leigh: As we have an entirely open mind on this matter I can announce today that I am happy to read any pamphlets on this issue, even those written by myself. More than that it might be unwise to say. My hon. Friend might conclude—I would not, but he might—that it is a misfortune of political life that a Back Bencher can say exactly what he wants although people do not always listen to him, while people always listen to a Minister, so he cannot say exactly what he wants to.
    I have a book on my desk in the DTI to which I occasionally refer when I am given an idle moment. It was written in the 14th century and entitled "The Cloud of
    268
    Unknowing"—that represents the reactionary fog in which the Opposition move. They are not prepared to look at anything or to reform anything. What is, has to be, for now and for ever more. I am the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, and I am prepared to consider competition and value for consumers with an open mind.
    Mr. Hain: I welcome the Minister's statement that he intends to retain the letter monopoly and I remind some of his hon. Friends who are keen to lift it that if they did so, cream-skimming would result and private operators would be willing to deliver only profitable inter-city routes. Conservative Members who advocate lifting the monopoly would find that services in rural areas would cause tariffs to rise to 80p a letter. The letter services to rural areas would be desperately hit and many Members thus affected would lose their seats as a result.
    Mr. Leigh: I fear that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my original answer, in which I said that the Government are absolutely committed to a uniform tariff structure, even in rural areas. We are also committed to choice and value for money in the Post Office, but we do not rule out that in certain circumstances competition may well increase choice and be to the benefit of the consumer.
    Mr. Harris: Despite the veiled attack by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), will the Minister accept the congratulations of most hon. Members from rural areas on getting the balance absolutely right on this difficult issue and for stressing the importance of a uniform tariff for the mail? By not ruling out the possibility of competition my hon. Friend has struck exactly the right balance.
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend has also got it absolutely right.

    Furniture Safety
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made recently to the Economic Community regarding regulations on the safety of furniture.
    Mr. Leigh: I visited Mr. Van Miert, the Commissioner responsible for consumer protection, on 17 May. We discussed matters arising from differences between the regulation of fire safety of furniture in the United Kingdom and the Commission's proposals for a directive on the fire behaviour of upholstered furniture. My Department has just received confirmation of a decision taken by the Commission not to proceed with the proposed directive on the fire behaviour of upholstered furniture pending research into the feasibility of suitable test methods.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and for the information that the directive has been postponed. In view of continuing research, will he ensure that when the directive comes back for consideration, United Kingdom law on the safety of furniture is not weakened by the acceptance of lower standards? Will he especially ensure that the regulations contain a water-soak test on the permanence of chemical finishes to upholstery materials? Will he also ensure that ignition resistance and fire spread levels are equal to those set out in United Kingdom legislation?
    Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. There was absolute cross-party agreement on this issue. We were determined firmly to take up this matter with the Commission. We said that we had the strongest standards in Europe and that we had imposed them with cross-party support and would not accept any directive which lowered them. It is a victory for both sides of the House and for the fire service and the industry involved that the directive has been postponed. We shall make it clear to the Commission in the two or three years grace that when the directive is reintroduced it must be based on our excellent standards.
    Mr. Conway: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the British furniture industry for its co-operation in the implementation of the regulations, especially with regard to clear labelling which, of course, enables consumers to see exactly what they are buying? As Britain and Ireland are the only two member states to have such regulations, will my hon. Friend assure consumers and the House that we shall continue to press to make sure that such regulations apply throughout the European Community?
    Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Plainly, when we receive the directive we must ensure that it is based on our standards. It is vital for the industry and for consumer safety that there is no question of any dangerous foam-filled furniture being imported. Our trading standard officers can stop such furniture coming in and there is no question of a legal challenge to our very high standards.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that his failure to champion and secure tougher measures on foam safety means that many furniture manufacturing jobs and companies are at risk and that hundreds of thousands of foam-filled items of furniture can be imported? The matter can be challenged in the European Court and we should have had a settlement by now. Why have we not secured an effective and tough directive?
    Mr. Leigh: Not for the first time the hon. Gentleman, who shadows me, appears to have devised his question before he heard my answer. I have made it clear that the Commission has withdrawn its directive. We cannot force the Commission to impose a directive now on our European competitors based on our high standards. All we can do is what we have achieved. We have prevented the Commission from introducing a directive which would have lowered those standards. Therefore, I repeat that the Commission's decision to withdraw the directive is a victory for both sides of the House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has sought to make a party-political point out of the matter.
    Mrs. Peacock: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the furniture industry, but will he confirm to the House that in that industry he includes those in Britain who manufacture beds? Will he ensure that their high standards are maintained and not watered down by Europe? Will he also ensure that any goods that are not up to those high standards are rejected at our ports?
    Mr. Leigh: The directive concerned our regulations on foam-filled furniture and in that respect my hon. Friend is right.

    European Commission (Industrial Policy)
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of the European Commission to discuss industrial policy.
    Mr. Lilley: I met representatives of the Commission at the ministerial meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris yesterday and we discussed various issues related to trade and industry.
    Mr. Cummings: Has the Minister recently considered the vast differences between the aid given to respective countries within the EC for research and development? Is it not rather foolish for us to be out of step with our competitors? Does he agree with the Prime Minister's constituent, Mr. Bill Abbotts, whose machine tool company is having real problems because of the Government's economic policies, that there really is nothing wrong with the country, only with its daft policies?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. In Britain, a higher proportion of research and development is financed by the Government than in most other countries and our research and development on civil matters financed by the Government is a slightly higher proportion of GDP than that financed by the Japanese Government. But the most successful research and development is often that carried out by private companies in a competitive environment because it is competition which stimulates innovation and growth and it is on that that we most rely. It is significant that during the last decade, when we returned to a competitive environment, for the first time for more than a century in peace time the British economy grew faster than that of France and Germany.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the CBI's new report "Competing in the New Europe" endorses the Government's policies on inflation, industrial relations and competition?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only that, but it condemns the Opposition's policies. It says that they are not wanted by industry, and it is right. When I go round the country, the Labour party is condemned because it has no strategy for defeating inflation. The country does not want to return to intervention, subsidies, controls and penal taxation with the trade unions back in the driving seat.
    Ms. Quin: Would the Secretary of State care to explain to his European counterparts some of the crazy industrial policy decisions that the Government have taken? For example, can he defend the scandal of the closure of the Sunderland shipyards recently highlighted by "Panorama", the failure to support shipbuilding orders at Appledore shipbuilders in Devon or the failure to allow bidders for Ravenscraig to put forward their proposals? Is it not the case that far from the Opposition running down industry, it is the Government who are intent on closing facilities and turning away orders?
    Mr. Lilley: That is absolute nonsense. Most of the policies to which the hon. Lady refers had a European dimension and we were acting within the constraints imposed by the European Commission and European law. I know that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) finds that distasteful, but none the less it is a fact. What I do find, and what I found yesterday at the OECD, is

    271
    complete amazement that there still exists one country in Europe with a party which still believes in socialism, and it is not east of the iron curtain, it is there on the Opposition Benches.

    Potash
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much potash by weight or value, at 1990 prices, was imported and exported by this country in each of the past 10 years.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The United Kingdom has had a deficit in trade in potash in each of the last 10 years, but the clear trend has been for a reduction in that deficit over the decade. I will arrange for the full information requested to be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Would not that deficit be made much worse if the only potash mine in Britain, which is in my constituency, were to be closed? Is it not the Government's responsibility to ensure that jobs are maintained by seeking to keep open prosperous businesses? Have not the chances of that mine being kept open been severely weakened by the Secretary of State's crass decision not to allow the Kemira deal with ICI which would have enhanced the job prospects of my constituents and kept open the only potash mine in Britain?
    Mr. Sainsbury: As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, no Secretary of State has overruled the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. My hon. Friend has described the company as successful; I

    Table 1

    United Kingdom trade in potassium chloride, 1981–19901

    '000 tonnes

    £'000s

    Volume exports

    Imports

    Balance

    Value exports

    Imports

    Balance

    1981

    91·2

    467·0

    -375·8

    4,671

    28,624

    -23,953

    1982

    76·6

    481·5

    -404·9

    4,733

    27,925

    -23,192

    1983

    145·7

    472·5

    -326·8

    9,288

    30,146

    -20,858

    1984

    96·6

    509·2

    -412·6

    6,522

    34,767

    -28,245

    1985

    78·5

    574·5

    -496·0

    6,371

    41,464

    -35,093

    1986

    94·9

    470·9

    -376·0

    7,293

    34,718

    -27,425

    1987

    327·4

    521·2

    -193·8

    22,799

    34,064

    -11,265

    1988

    434·6

    5706

    -1360

    29,595

    38,150

    -8,555

    1989

    367·1

    452·6

    -85·5

    26,695

    33,498

    -6,803

    1990

    384·5

    3—

    3—

    28,266

    3—

    3—

    Table 2

    United Kingdom trade in potassium salts, 1981–19902

    '000 tonnes

    £'000s

    Volume exports

    Imports

    Balance

    Value exports

    Imports

    Balance

    1981

    2·1

    55·6

    -53·5

    686

    6,010

    -5,324

    1982

    2·4

    58·8

    -56·4

    1,158

    7,482

    -6,324

    1983

    3—

    60·4

    3—

    3—

    8,372

    3—

    1984

    3—

    74·0

    3—

    3—

    9,495

    3—

    1985

    3—

    64·6

    3—

    3—

    10,463

    3—

    1986

    3—

    67·0

    3—

    3—

    11,072

    3—

    1987

    6·9

    63·2

    -56·3

    2,323

    11,823

    -9,500

    1988

    7·5

    84·2

    -76·7

    3,609

    14,147

    -10,538

    1989

    6·2

    68·7

    -62·5

    3,505

    15,206

    -11,701

    1990

    8·2

    102·1

    -93·9

    4,051

    17,964

    -13,913

    1 Covers section 562·31 of the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC).

    2 Covers sections 272·4, 522·64, 523·52, 523·74, 562·32 and 562·39 of the SITC.

    3 Denotes that the figures are not available, since publication could be disclosive of commercially sensitive information.

    Source: British Geological Survey.
    congratulate it on its success, and, indeed, on its export achievements. The most effective way of keeping companies going are not Government intervention, subsidies and handouts, but efficient production by efficient companies and successful exporting.
    Mr. Graham: Do the Minister and the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) realise on what the import of potash, and the success of that company, depend? In my constituency, many people work for Kvaerner Kincaed which produces marine ship engines. The company importing potash cannot have an engine built by any other British company, because Kvaerner Kincaed is the last company in Britain that produces such engines. Why are the Government standing idly by while my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is in Europe fighting his corner to keep the marine engine industry alive?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ingenuity with which he has linked the subject of marine engines with that of potash. I am happy to say that, because of the success of the company in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), marine engines often carry British exports of potash abroad, as well as bringing potash imports into this country.
    The following is the information:
    United Kingdom trade in "potash" (ie potassium salts) is predominantly in potassium chloride. Trade in this product is shown in table 1. Trade in other potassium salts is shown in table 2.
    Values at constant prices are not available. Current price figures have been given in their place.

    Imports
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to reduce import penetration.
    Mr. Lilley: The Department's policies aim to foster the competitiveness of British industry.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is not that a very complacent answer? There has been a 10 per cent. increase in import penetration since 1979, and currently 50 per cent. of cars, 80 per cent. of videos and 90 per cent. of office equipment are imported. Is the Secretary of State aware that National Power and PowerGen are contemplating importing another 30 million tonnes of coal, which will add £170 million to our balance of payments deficit? Has he no plans to control those imports?
    Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to control imports, he must first persuade his party to propose that we leave the EC, as the matter is entirely within EC competence.
    It so happens that import penetration in the United Kingdom as a proportion of gross domestic product is almost exactly the same as that in Germany, which is not generally held to be an uncompetitive country. I am glad to say that our exports have risen in volume terms by some 60 per cent. over the past decade, which is proof that British industry is competing abroad with increasing success. That is a result of our policy of encouraging competition.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we really believe in free trade, we should not be unduly worried about import penetration, but should do everything possible to encourage our exports? Is he really satisfied that we have an open market in Japan in all respects?
    Mr. Lilley: I am never satisfied. Every time that I meet the Japanese industry Minister, as I did yesterday, I encourage him to open his market further to British goods. Over the past three years, when we have made our campaign to encourage the exporting of goods to Japan a priority, exports have nearly doubled. We are now launching a new campaign, with the support of the Japanese Government, to open up opportunities for British industry on an expanding scale. I am delighted that industry is responding to those opportunities.
    Mr. Turner: Will the Secretary of State accept that import penetration is not helped by the obsessive mergers and takeovers with which we are so beset? A company in my constituency, S. Edge and Co., has traded successfully for many years. It has an excellent work force and an excellent product, but, as a result of a takeover, it is having to call in the receiver. What will the Secretary of State do about those 350 jobs?
    Mr. Lilley: If a merger or takeover reduces competition, we can take action to prevent that under our mergers and competition policy. However, it would be wrong to protect every company from the prospect of managerial change or increased competition as a result of takeover.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that almost all the Labour party's policies would make British
    274
    firms less competitive in this market and, therefore, make import penetration even worse? Will he continue to warn the British public about that danger?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is no coincidence that the only period since the war, in a complete economic cycle, when there has been virtually no growth in productivity outside the oil industry and in non-oil GDP was during the previous Labour Government. That should be contrasted with the success of the 1980s when for the first time in a peacetime decade for a century, Britain outstripped France and Germany.

    Single European Market
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the preparedness of British industry for the completion of the single European market.
    Mr. Sainsbury: British industry is well informed about the single European market. Many firms are taking positive steps to meet the opportunities and challenges that it is bringing.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister admit that his Department is no thoroughbred when it comes to informing British companies about the single market? A recent survey showed that only 8 per cent. of those companies have any idea of what will happen to them when the starting stalls are opened. Is that not another reason why the Tories should be sent off to the knackers yard?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on including an appropriate series of analogies such as thoroughbreds on this day. I do not know whether he is aware of what will happen shortly after 3·45 pm. I am happy to say that our surveys show that there is 98 per cent. awareness in British industry of the single market as a result of our highly successful and appreciated advertising campaign. Over 50 per cent. of firms have said that they have taken, are taking or intend to take action to meet the changes brought about by the single market.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: What advice are the Government giving to the Japanese-owned British car manufacturers as to how they can take advantage of the single market, bearing in mind that, as the Minister knows, discussions are taking place now about the fact that the production of the Japanese-owned firms will be included within a collective EEC import quota? Does he appreciate that, instead of encouraging free trade, it will discourage any Japanese industrialists from investing in Britain?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to say that one Japanese company—Nissan—is exporting over 80 per cent. of its production. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we have made it clear that there is no doubt that Japanese-marked cars produced in Britain should be freely traded in the Community in the same way as cars produced by United States-owned firms.
    Dr. Moonie: Given the critical importance of British Steel to British manufacturing industry's competitive position, why are the Government steadfastedly refusing to allow the House to debate the issue? Does the Minister accept that the Government hold a special share in British Steel and guarantees from that company? Given that

    275
    Ravenscraig is profitable and that there were other potential bidders for that part of British Steel, will the Minister call in that company and ask the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the position?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that a debate on the steel industry is so urgent when it is not a subject chosen for debate this very day by Her Majesty's Opposition. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that it is important that British industry should have available competitive and efficient supplies of steel. I feel that I hardly need remind the hon. Gentleman of how much more competitive and efficient the British steel industry has become since privatisation.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does not my hon. Friend consider discriminatory and extremely dangerous the proposals made by the European Commission to count cars with a high European content made in Britain in Japanese-owned factories as Japanese and therefore not to allow them to be sold freely in Europe? Is not it the case that European and especially British consumers have been ripped off for far too long by import barriers which have been lobbied for by inefficient, subsidised and protected European manufacturers such as Fiat and Renault? Is not it about time that such companies put their own houses in order rather than expecting the British consumer to foot the bill for them?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise from what I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have said that there is no possibility of what he suggested about Japanese-marked cars made in Britain happening. We cannot anticipate what the European Commission will finally propose in that regard, but I repeat what I said earlier—as far as we are concerned, Japanese-marked cars made in Britain must be allowed to trade freely throughout the Community.

    Recession
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the recession in industry in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lilley: Ministers and officials of my Department keep in touch with the CBI on a wide range of business matters. I next expect to meet representatives of the CBI on 14 June 1991.
    Mr. Mitchell: I bet that the CBI is looking forward to an empty ministerial car drawing up outside its offices and the entire DTI team getting out. When the Secretary of State meets the CBI, will he tell it that 3,200 jobs have been lost every working day since the Prime Minister took office, that 4,000 jobs a week have been lost in manufacturing and that 40,000 viable companies are predicted to go bust this year? Will he also tell the CBI that the Chancellor's prophecy that recovery was just around the corner was last used by President Hoover in the United States in 1930 and that there can be no recovery until the Chancellor gets interest rates down substantially in order to jolt manufacturing out of the spiral of decline?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is clearly brushing up his green credentials by recycling old jokes. I acknowledge that there is concern about the depth of the recession, but I know that industry believes that our first priority must be
    276
    to get inflation down. In its meetings with me, the CBI has made it clear that it supports the priority that we give to that objective and that it has no intention of urging us to withdraw from the exchange rate mechanism. It is also confident that, as industry recovers from the recession we shall see a renewed, strong growth during the 1990s such as that which it praised us for achieving during the 1980s.
    Mr. Forman: When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of the CBI, will he take the opportunity to remind its members of the Government's positive record in creating the framework for inward investment? Will he draw to their attention especially our success in securing about three fifths of American inward investment in the Community and about two fifths of Japanese investment in recent years? Will he also draw to their attention the contribution that that can make to pulling us out of the recession?
    Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly do that. This country's success in attracting inward investment from all over the world demonstrates that we have created the most attractive environment anywhere in Europe for industry, especially manufacturing industry. That is why the most recent figures produced by the Japanese show that about half of all Japanese investment in Europe comes to this country and that we attract more Japanese investment than the whole of Asia.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Given today's latest figures which show that there has been a 97 per cent. rise in small business failures in the south and a 115 per cent. rise in business failures in the midlands, and given the latest forecast that up to 1,000 businesses every week could go under, will the Secretary of State, in addition to any talks that he will have with the banks, now speak up for the needs of the businesses of Britain? Will he urge the banks to bring down interest rates of 16, 17 and 18 per cent. as a matter of immediacy, or is he abandoning the small businesses of Britain just as quickly as the Government have abandoned the unemployed?
    Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly ask the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate any anti-competitive practices in which I have received evidence that the banks are indulging, whether the evidence results from the inquiries of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or otherwise. I have received no evidence and no evidence has been submitted by the hon. Gentleman to me or to the Director General. [Interruption.] There have been allegations, but first we must establish the facts. That is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England are doing. Only in the light of facts can decisions be taken.
    I am aware of the deep anxiety among small businesses about various practices of which they accuse the banks. That is why I asked my regional offices to initiate a series of meetings—the first of which took place three weeks ago in the west midlands—between banks and businesses at which businesses could put directly to the banks the changes that they wish to see.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree, first, that one feature of the British economy is its slowness to respond to a stimulus and, secondly, that confidence is a major factor in pulling the economy out of recession? Therefore, does not he think it prudent that we reduce interest rates as soon as that can conceivably be achieved?
    Mr. Lilley: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend on that. I accept the point that he makes. However, he will agree that the anxiety expressed by the Labour party about the level of interest rates is full of crocodile tears because it has declared that its policy would be to increase
    278
    Government borrowing, which would drive up interest rates, increase inflation and give greater pain to small businesses than anything that they have suffered in the past.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Keith. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any notification from the Foreign Secretary that he intends to make a statement about the position of British citizens in Addis Ababa, in Ethiopia? I was contacted this morning by Mr. Paul Anderson and Mr. Nigel Comely, who work for a firm in my constituency. They told me that the situation in the capital is extremely dangerous. They and about six other British people have been trying to leave the capital, but there are no aeroplanes to take them out. They have suggested to the British embassy that they be taken to Kenya or a nearby country from which they could make their way to London.
Do you, Mr. Speaker, know whether a statement is to be made? As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is on the Government Front Bench, could he tell the House what the position is and reassure us that those citizens are being given all the help that is possible?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but it is an important matter and what has been said will have been heard by the Minister.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about whether in the debate that we are to have on London it will be in order to highlight the fact that the education policies of Lambeth have so affected education that the official Labour party spokesman is transferring his child to a Conservative—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have seldom heard a more spurious point of order than that. If the hon. Member seeks to participate in the debate and succeeds, he can make that point. However, it is not a point of order for me to deal with now.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the Floor of the House yesterday, I raised a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman. I have written to him on the matter, and I think that he will have received my letter.
Mr. Cryer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Member read my letter to him?
Mr. Cryer: I have done so, Mr. Speaker. I accept that when I raised the point of order about members and the chairman of Lloyd's seeking to influence legislation in this place, the matter was hypothetical. I must draw your attention to the list of amendments which have been tabled to the Finance Bill. New clause 24 specifically provides for
"carry-back of underwriters' trading losses",
which would directly apply to Lloyd's members. Therefore, the matter is not hypothetical, especially bearing in mind—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me now. It will be debated in Standing Committee. It is for the Chairman of the Committee, first, to decide whether to select the amendment and, secondly, to make a decision on
280
the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I cannot foreshadow what the Chairman is likely to say about that matter. Nor have I seen the new clause.
Mr. Cryer: Am I correct in assuming, therefore, that new clause 24, which is not listed as a clause to be dealt with by the Standing Committee—indeed, it is exempted from the list to be dealt with by the Committee—will be dealt with on the Floor of the House? If the clause is debated in the House after the Bill has been reported, are you prepared, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement on the financial influence of Lloyd's?
Mr. Speaker: If that matter were to arise on Report when I was in the Chair, that would be a different matter. However, I cannot foreshadow what the Chairman of Ways and Means may decide if it is to be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House, or what may be decided by the Chairman of the Standing Committee upstairs.
Mr. Nicholls rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I dealt with the hon. Member's point of order.
Mr. Nicholls: But I could not hear your ruling, Mr. Speaker, because of the noise being made by Labour Members.
Mr. Speaker: My ruling was that it was a spurious point of order.
Mr. Robin Squire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a matter with you, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as the guardian of the accuracy of the Official Report. In a debate on 1 December 1987 on the Education Reform Bill, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said:
"Instead, it is to the Secretary of State's eternal shame that he has brought forth a Bill that will divide; that will set child against child, class against class, parent against parent, school against school, race against race."—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 783.]
The hon. Gentleman added that that would "lead to educational apartheid." In the light of this morning's news concerning the hon. Member for Blackburn, of which we have just heard, will you, Mr. Speaker, investigate whether that is a true and fair record?
Mr. Speaker: That point of order seems to me equally spurious.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Opposition Members frequently raise points of order on the ground that Conservative Members predominantly should not speak on certain issues because they have an interest in them. Are you not fed up to the back teeth with that hypocrisy—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hypocrisy is not a word that we use in this Chamber. What is the hon. Member's point of order? I frequently get fed up, and I shall be fed up in a minute.
Mr. Howarth: I was making the point that double standards were being applied. On no occasion have Labour Members sought your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether they should speak on matters to do with trade union reform, when they are paid by the trade unions.
Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows the rule. On matters of public policy, it is always legitimate for Members to vote. When private interests are involved, that is a different matter.
Mr. Bob Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice in respect of a sub judice matter. On the Order Paper for this afternoon is a motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition concerning the government of London. Police inquiries are now taking place within the housing department of the Labour-controlled London borough of Hackney. Will it be in order during today's debate for any right hon. or hon. Member to refer to the alleged corruption that has taken place in the London borough of Hackney's housing department? May we, or may we not, speak on that matter?
Mr. Speaker: As far as I am aware, no criminal charges have been brought, so it would be legitimate to raise the matter in the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 21 JUNE
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Roger Knapman.

Mr. Eric Illsley.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

Education (Swimming and Water Safety) (No. 2)
3.40 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Education Reform Act 1988 in order to make special provision for the teaching of swimming in maintained schools; and for connected purposes.
I am sure that the many hon. Members who are keen swimmers will need no convincing of its value as a recreational activity. It is of more benefit to a person's overall fitness than any other sport. It exercises the whole body and can be paced to individual requirements and development. It is particularly suited to children and adults with special needs, such as those with asthma and spina bifida, to choose but two examples.
Swimming is a health-promoting exercise that is virtually free from injury. It is the only activity that scores maximum points on the key criteria set out by the Health Education Authority for providing stamina, suppleness and strength. What really marks swimming from other sports, however, is that the ability to swim, and the knowledge and possession of water safety skills, is a critical factor in reducing the risk of drowning.
Research by the Royal Life Saving Society and the Amateur Swimming Association shows that, throughout all age groups, the risk of drowning is more significant for non-swimmers and that among the 10-to-24 age group non-swimmers are three and a half times more at risk than swimmers. In the past three years, almost 200 children under 15 have died by drowning, 80 per cent. of whom could not swim.
With the growth in water-related sports such as canoeing, water skiing and sub-aqua, it is more important than ever that every child learns to swim. In spite of that, many schools and local authorities do not have a requirement to provide swimming lessons, and the level of provision is declining.
The three national governing bodies of swimming—the Royal Life Saving Society, the Amateur Swimming Association and the English Schools Swimming Association—became so concerned about that trend that they formed a Swim for Life campaign, with the aim of securing the teaching of swimming by all schools. In 1988, the campaign surveyed local authorities and found that more than half had no clear policy on the teaching of swimming, while more than 80 per cent. could not meet the basic standards for the provision of swimming lessons. A more recent survey by the Secondary Heads Association confirms the trend and shows a further reduction, with fewer than half of 11 to 15-year-olds having any curricular swimming.
The inequality of swimming provision cannot simply be ascribed to resources or to the political complexion of a council. High and low-spending councils have been cutting swimming lessons. Unfortunately, because it is not statutory and can be cut without going into legal obligations, swimming is perceived by many local authorities as a marginal area.
The unacceptable and declining level of swimming provision is highlighted by comparison with other European countries. The French have a programme of building hundreds of pools and have introduced comprehensive swimming instruction, which is already

283
showing dividends in improved standards. In west Germany, every child leaving school can swim. In the Netherlands, swimming lessons are given to children aged seven or over, and there are standard tests to determine their ability. It is reasonable to aim for all British children to achieve at least minimal swimming standards by the time that they leave primary school.
With physical education on the national curriculum as a foundation subject, we have the means to ensure that every child receives proper tuition in swimming and water safety—not just those whose education authorities are more enlightened. The working group set up to advise on the form that PE should take in the national curriculum published an interim report in February, which concluded that
"swimming is too important to leave to chance and should be an entitlement under the national curriculum".
It went on to make the strong recommendation that all children should be able to swim and possess water safety skills by the age of 11.
However, the Government are concerned about resources and have firmly told the working group to make recommendations which can be
"realistically related to the general level of funding which can reasonably be expected to be made available."
At a recent conference organised by the Swim for Life campaign, the Minister for Sport clarified the Government's position:
"There is no doubt that the ability to swim saves lives and provision of swimming tuition can be justified on this ground alone."
That is welcome; but my hon. Friend went on to say:
"We simply cannot impose a duty on schools which they are unable to deliver".
That is a reasonable point, and clearly we need to consider the practical implications of a fixed educational requirement that every child should be taught to swim.
The Swim for Life campaign discussed that issue at its conference. A facilities consultant to the Amateur Swimming Association estimated that, with proper targeting of existing facilities and resources, it would cost £4·8 million to teach every 10-year-old to swim. That approach is sensible, as it recognises that resources must be allocated more evenly if there is to be a swimming requirement.
Clearly it is wrong that some children receive extensive swimming tuition and recreational swimming while others receive nothing at all. 11£4·8 million is all that stands in the way of the right of every youngster to learn to swim, that seems a small price to pay when measured against the cost of hundreds of children's lives. It is a small part of the multi-billion pound budget of the Department of Education and Science.
The ASA assessment highlighted the cost of not teaching children to swim. Every child who learns to swim then visits public pools, which gain revenue from the visit. Conversely, pools will lose revenue if swimming lessons continue to decline. It was estimated that, if every 10-year-old were taught to swim, that trend would suggest a potential gain of about £138·5 million—far in excess of the cost of the lessons.
My purpose in introducing a Bill to require all schoolchildren to be taught swimming and water safety is to promote the implementation of the working group's
284
recommendation and to ensure that the Government's concern about resources can be met. My Bill is similar to the one being ably steered through another place, with strong cross-party support, by my noble Friend Lord Norrie. It would require maintained schools to teach swimming so as to ensure that all their pupils could swim and had an understanding of water safety. The Secretary of State would be required to set attainment targets and programmes of study under the national curriculum. That goes beyond the existing requirements of the Education Reform Act, which leaves it to the Secretary of State's discretion whether swimming and water safety should be specified as part of PE under the curriculum.
I fully appreciate the Government's concern that finding the resources to implement the Bill could be a problem. The position is made worse by the fact that there is so little information about existing facilities. That is why my Bill would require the Secretary of State to conduct a survey of swimming facilities available to schools, and would give him the power, for a transitional period of five years, to exempt schools from the requirement if he were satisfied, on the evidence of the survey, that lack of swimming facilities would place an "unreasonable burden" on them. That means that rural schools, where pupils cannot easily reach pools, may be exempted. However, the Bill specifically states that every child must still be taught the principles of water safety and that such schools may be exempted only for the transitional period of five years.
The life-saving features of swimming also make it essential that children should be taught to swim to minimum standards. My Bill would require the Secretary of State to prescribe targets. The national curriculum working group has already recognised that by recommending that pupils should be able to swim a minimum distance of 25 m, possess water safety skills and have a sound knowledge of water—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady coming to the end of her speech? She has had her 10 minutes, but she may complete her sentence.
Mrs. Winterton: Thank you for the warning, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, this is a small Bill that will have a big impact if passed. It would be enormously popular throughout the country and is supported by both parents and teachers. In due course, I hope that the House will support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Ann Winterton, Miss Kate Hoey, Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Denis Howell, Sir Neil Macfarlane, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. Mike Watson and Mrs. Sylvia Heal.

Education (Swimming and Water Safety) (No. 2)
  EDUCATION (SWIMMING AND WATER SAFETY) (No. 2)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Education Reform Act 1988 in order to make special provision for the teaching of swimming in maintained schools; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June and to be printed. [Bill 172.]
Opposition Day
  12TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Government of London
    Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. As many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate and I have no possibility of limiting the length of speeches in a half-day debate, I ask those on the Front Benches, and Back-Bench Members especially, to make brief contributions so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called.
    3.52 pm
    Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move,
    That this House deplores the traffic congestion, the public transport chaos, the pollution, the homelessness, the filthy streets, the inner city decay and the unemployment which have made daily life a misery for millions of Londoners; holds the Government to account for the policies which have failed London over more than a decade; reaffirms the value and importance of a capital city which can realise its full potential as a manufacturing, trading, financial and cultural centre; and endorses the need for a Labour Government which will bring to London the benefits of constructive national policies on health, education and training, housing and transport, the spur to the efficient delivery of local authority services provided by the Quality Commission, and the establishment of an elected, city-wide, strategic authority which will give Londoners a voice on the future of their city.
    London is not working. Our great capital, once the world's greatest city, which has so much going for it and so great a heritage upon which to draw, is gradually grinding to a halt. Londoners may not know precisely why things are going wrong, but they certainly know that they have gone wrong. No fewer than 67 per cent. of Londoners, as revealed in an Evening Standard poll that was published last week, believe that services in the capital have got worse during the past 10 years.
    It is not surprising that that should be their perception: they see the incontrovertible evidence in their daily lives. They see it in the overcrowded, filthy, overpriced and unreliable tube trains that make a nightmare of their daily trip to and from work. I travel regularly on the underground, and my experience, which I imagine is rarely shared by Ministers as they sweep by in their chauffeur-driven cars, but which is certainly shared by millions of other Londoners, is that there are few journeys that are not disrupted by cancellations, delays or breakdowns of one sort or another, adding frustration and chaos to what is already an uncomfortable and unpleasant experience.
    London Underground's chairman, Mr. Wilfrid Newton, knows well the deficiencies of the system and the desperate need for new investment. He has described the system for which he is responsible as "an appalling shambles". That judgment is almost certain to be confirmed by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report which is to be published shortly.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: No, I have only just begun my speech. I may give way later.
    286
    In the meantime, we are lumbered with the highest fares in Europe—twice the European average—for a system which is barely delivering an acceptable service. The inevitable consequence of a Government policy which requires London Underground to operate without subsidy is that it is compelled to try to resolve its problems by pricing customers off its trains.
    Londoners also know that things have gone wrong when they see the traffic congestion and the pollution on our roads as the traffic grinds to a halt. The average speed of traffic in London today has fallen below 10 miles an hour. That sharp fall, which has occurred in the past year or two, has brought the average speed down to not much more than it was at the turn of this century.
    Londoners know that things have gone wrong when they see the filthy streets, strewn with litter and disfigured by graffiti. They also see it in the cracked pavements and the derelict sites, which go some way to explain Mother Teresa's famous comment that London to her looked in many respects like a third-world city.
    Londoners know that things have gone wrong when they see the housing crisis in the capital, which has produced record levels of homelessness. More than 30,000 households are in temporary accommodation, and 8,000 are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. There has been a rise of 300 per cent. in home repossessions in the capital, which compares with an already high figure of 100 per cent. in the rest of the country.
    Londoners and visitors from outside the city have been shocked to see the revival of the shameful spectacle of young people begging on our streets by day and sleeping on our streets by night. We thought that that had been consigned to the Victorian era. That is the tip of a huge iceberg of unmet housing needs, which has produced the scandal of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and swollen housing waiting lists in every local authority with which surely every Conservative Member representing a London constituency must be familiar in his or her regular surgery. Unfortunately, it also produces the forcing ground for criminal practices such as those that are now being investigated by the fraud squad in Hackney.
    Londoners know that things have gone wrong because of the swelling dole queues and the hopelessness felt by so many with no job prospects or opportunity to acquire the necessary skills. They know it from the boarded-up shop fronts and derelict factory sites, as London's role as a great manufacturing and trading centre is eroded by recession and business failures.
    The facts of the recession in London speak for themselves. The latest figures for unemployment in London show an increase from 201,196 in April last year to 309,263 in April this year—an increase of 108,000 or 53·7 per cent. The ratio of unemployment to the number of vacancies in London is 26:1—the highest in the country. It is higher than the ratio of 25:1 in Northern Ireland and that of 9:1 in Scotland.
    Business failures in London and the south-east rose by 109 per cent. between the last quarter of 1989 and 1990. Recent surveys of business confidence in the capital show clearly how business now fears even worse times. The London chamber of commerce survey for the first quarter of 1991 showed that, among the larger London firms, employing more than 250,000 staff each, fewer than 20 per cent. are operating at full strength. The Evening Standard/

    287
    Investors in Industry survey for April found that 94 per cent. of companies in the capital are likely to reduce, or at best maintain, their work forces in the coming year.
    Londoners know that things are going wrong from the growing climate of violence and lawlessness which is the product of recession and hopelessness. It makes our streets unsafe and women afraid to leave their homes at night. The Evening Standard poll shows that no fewer than 69 per cent. of Londoners put their concern about the level of crime at the highest point on the scale that they were offered.
    Londoners know that things are going wrong because the waiting lists for treatment in London hospitals are the longest in the country. They are particularly long in the North East Thames region—some Conservative Members who are present will know what I mean—where my constituency has the misfortune to suffer that problem, as does the constituency of the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert).
    Londoners know that things are going wrong with schools, which are struggling with low morale and resources. They see it in local government services, which have been cut as a consequence of the poll tax, the imposition of capping and the unfairness of a grant system that has been skewed for political purposes. They see it, too, in the problems of the voluntary sector, so long one of the flagships of London's pride and self-confidence but now a further victim of the cuts imposed by the Government.
    In short, Londoners have lost confidence in their city. That has not happened, as the Government pretend, because the Labour party says so or because we have chosen to debate London's problems, but because the reality of their daily experience confirms that life in our city is now difficult, bad-tempered and without much hope of improvement. Among those who share that perception are many who would not normally be counted as supporters of the Labour party. They include the editors of The Sunday Times and the Evening Standard and the European Commissioner for the Environment. They all agree that the quality of life in our capital city has declined alarmingly.
    A staggering 46 per cent. of Londoners would like to leave the city in which they live. Only the most purblind of Governments would seek to dismiss that judgment and vote of no confidence by Londoners. [Interruption.]
    Even aspects of London that have traditionally been its greatest strength are being put needlessly at risk. The City's role as Europe's pre-eminent financial centre is increasingly being challenged by other cities, notably Frankfurt. London's attempts to fight back are hardly helped by transport and traffic systems that are grinding to a halt. Journeys to the City from the major airports take two or three times longer than they should. [Interruption.]
    In case anyone should take seriously the Minister of State's interjections from a sedentary position, may I make it clear that such concerns are expressed not only by the Labour party but also by such people as Sir Martin Jacomb, Chairman of Barclays De Zoete Wedd, and Mr. Stanley Yassukovich, the former chairman of the Securities Association. They are among the increasingly powerful and concerned voices who share the Opposition's concern on this issue.
    Mr. John Gorst: Without in any way detracting from some of the hon. Gentleman's points, may
    288
    I ask him to try to put the problem into a wider perspective? Many of the complaints that he has chronicled can be found in Tokyo, Paris and every major capital city throughout the world. Are we not merely listening to a catalogue of the problems of living in large urban cities?
    Mr. Gould: I am grateful for the tone of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I think that he is wrong. We have compared London's problems with those of other major capital cities such as Tokyo and Paris and of Frankfurt—the last not a capital, but an important European city—and our contention, which is widely accepted, is that London is falling behind other European cities in many respects.
    The only example in which the hon. Gentleman has a point is one which I would adduce as a model to be avoided, and from which lessons can be learned—New York. I fully accept that what we describe as having gone wrong with London went wrong with New York some years earlier. We are determined that London should not go down that path. That is why we are holding this debate and why I wish to put these points on record. I want to assure Londoners that Labour Members—I suspect, to do them justice, that some Conservative Members share our concerns—are determined to avoid the fate that has befallen New York.
    I was saying that even some of London's strengths have been unnecessarily undermined. London's traditional role as a great artistic and cultural centre is being increasingly put in the shade by modern European cities such as Paris, the very example given by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). By contrast with the vibrant cultural life, imaginative new projects, stimulus to the best modern architects and attention to its built environment and riverscape shown by Paris, London has a cultural scene dominated by holes in the roof of the Tate gallery, the forced closure of the Royal Shakespeare Company for four months earlier this year and the withdrawal of funding from Tara Arts, a world-class Asian theatre group. Even London zoo is threatened with closure by a Government who are so short-sighted that they cannot see the point of investing in an institution which is a major tourist attraction and a centre for scientific research.
    The pity of it is that London's great potential remains and could be realised. London is the first of our major cities to recognise the possibility of renewing itself by moving eastwards and redeveloping those districts which hitherto have been regarded merely as the casualties of its history. As both a resident and a Member of Parliament in east London, I can hardly say too much about the sense of excitement that I feel at that prospect. The shame of it is that the task of carrying out that redevelopment was entrusted by the Government to a development corporation, the very purpose of which was to exclude the interests of local people and which has now itself fallen victim to the very market forces that it unleashed.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: In my first six years in the House of Commons, there were many debates during the term of a Labour Government on how three Labour London authorities, plus the Greater London council, were unable to get anything happening in 5,000 acres of dereliction, absence of jobs, no housing and no prospects.
    As to the issue of people wanting to move out, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) may consider adding

    289
    this point to his speech. I represent a constituency in the borough of Greenwich. It is the only place I know where there have been two polls about whether people in the outlying parts of Bromley and Bexley would like to join Greenwich. The residents of Thamesmead and the residents of Mottingham said no firmly. One of the associate factors is that Greenwich is Labour-run and Bromley and Bexley are not. It seems that the Labour party should recognise how unpopular it is in London compared with other parts of the country.
    Mr. Gould: I shall deal with the state of public opinion in London in a moment.
    On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the London Docklands development corporation, which had the benefit of the tremendous and, we know now, unfortunate property boom, has found itself unable to use the huge sums that it managed to realise through speculation to do anything about the royal docks. Therefore, we can hardly look to the record of the LDDC as a model for achieving what was set before it as a task to serve the interests of Londoners.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: Does not the experience of the LDDC show the appalling failure of the Government and their lack of planning policy? The docklands district is suffering because there is no proper road and rail infrastructure into it. Do not the Government have a Singapore mentality towards docklands, in that they ignore the surrounding districts, turning them into a sort of third world? [Laughter.]
    Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend knows a good deal more about such problems than some of the Conservative Members who are laughing uproariously.
    London can provide the gateway to Europe and constitute the essential fulcrum for opening up to new markets and influences which will be so important to our national economy as a whole. That cannot be achieved as long as what the director general of the Confederation of British Industry describes as an
    "apparent allergy to strategic thinking"
    means that, in his view, it will be northern France, not London and the south-east of England, that will benefit from the channel tunnel and the single European market.
    London's capacity to act as a magnet for the best and brightest talent remains undimmed. London has an unrivalled cultural heritage, which should continue to put our city in the forefront of European civilisation.
    These high hopes of a revival of pride and confidence in our city can be achieved, but they have been needlessly undermined and betrayed by Government policies over more than a decade. Those policies have to a large extent been applied on a national scale, but they have had a particularly unfortunate impact on our capital city. They are essentially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said a moment ago, policies of disengagement, of non-intervention, of unfettered market forces—summed up in one word: under-investment.
    I refer, for instance, to under-investment in housing; insanely, London boroughs, like other local authorities, have been prevented from spending their own money on grappling with a housing problem which is ticking away
    290
    like a time bomb about to explode. That is just one aspect of this unremitting hostility to local government which has made the administration of London so difficult.
    There has been under-investment in the transport system, which not only creates misery for those who have to use it but which presents a real threat to the city's economic viability because the deficiencies in our transport system act as such a disincentive to new investment in the capital.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the draft Labour Budget presented by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) contains no provision for increased spending on public transport in London? How much is he now proposing to spend, and has he agreed it with the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)?
    Mr. Gould: First, there never was any such thing as a draft Labour Budget; secondly, even if there had been and if the hon. Gentleman knew anything about Budgets, he would know that it would not have included provision for public spending.
    Under-investment is seen at its most striking in education and training, in the health service and in protecting the environment. This under-investment leaves London and Londoners ill equipped to face a competitive future in which other European cities are forging ahead.
    In addition to suffering from national policies, however, London has suffered from a particular set of Government policies that have disadvantaged the capital in special ways. Londoners have suffered from the impact of the poll tax and the damage resulting from the imposition of capping. They have suffered from the skewing of the grant system. But foremost among all these acts of damage was the act of political spite which, with the abolition of the GLC, deprived our city of a Londonwide voice.
    Ministers who argue that Londoners were glad to see the demise of the GLC misrepresent the public attitude of the time and fail to understand the mood of Londoners today. The Evening Standard poll shows that two out of three Londoners want a voice for London, with the great majority of them favouring an elected citywide authority. Only one in five favour making no change, yet, with unerring accuracy, that is the very position adopted by the Secretary of State, whose absence today is notable. It shows how little interest he has in the future fortunes of our capital city.
    This is precisely the position that the right hon. Gentleman adopts in his consultative paper, paragraph 28 of which states baldly:
    "The Government have no plans to change the general structure of local government in London."
    Jibes at the GLC are hardly an adequate response to the overwhelming demand for change and for a London voice.
    Londoners know that it is nonsense that our city, uniquely, has no citywide voice, no one capable of taking a strategic view of the needs and interests that we share as Londoners or of the future that should be ours. They see the contrast between London and other British cities, each of which has a citywide administration. They see the contrast with every other major capital city in the world. They know, for example, that London's ill-fated Olympic bid could not be taken seriously as long as there was no one to speak for London. They know that to insist that

    291
    London is no more than a collection of boroughs that should be governed accordingly is to deny London's sense of community and identity, its history and its future.
    As the Evening Standard's leading article put it on 28 May—I do not often quote leading articles from the Evening Standard—Londoners
    "look upon themselves first and foremost as Londoners—citizens of the greatest, most historic, most beautiful and most-visited capital city in the world".
    That is why Londoners support our proposals.
    In the hands of a Labour Government, our measures will provide London with the benefits of national policies for investment in the basic public services, and a priority commitment to the improvement of those services rather than to an increase in consumption through tax cuts and unsustainable credit booms. Londoners will want the benefits that will flow to a local administration from a Government who value the role of local government and who want to see boroughs fulfilling their proper role in building houses, protecting the local environment, helping, in partnership with the private sector, to regenerate the local economy, and delivering high-quality services.
    Mr. Steve Norris: In the hon. Gentleman's great tour de raison of London, one issue does not seem to have been addressed. Most pollsters are aware of the London Labour factor, which shows how voters in London consistently turn against the Labour party in any national evaluation of opinion. A resident of Lambeth who looks at what is happening in Wandsworth sees clearly what is wrong with London. It is that too many London boroughs are controlled by the Labour party.
    Mr. Gould: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is not the assiduous reader of the Evening Standard that I took him to be. If he had read with care and attention the poll results published last week on precisely this subject, he would have discovered not only overwhelming support for every aspect of our proposals but the fact that Londoners, by a margin of four percentage points—43 per cent. to 39 per cent.—support Labour rather than his party. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to make something of the difference between that lead and the lead of six percentage points that we enjoy in national polls, but I do not think that he wants to draw too much attention to those figures.
    Londoners will especially welcome our proposals for a quality commission to encourage and promote the establishment and monitoring of high standards, which will be published and checkable, and for the provision for individual citizens of effective remedies if those standards are not met. Despite the Johnny-come-lately efforts of the Prime Minister to jump on the bandwagon, those measures offer a more real and certain prospect of efficient administration than can be offered by any Government who remain fundamentally hostile to local government.
    Above all, Londoners want a new citywide, strategic, elected authority that will address the strategic interests of our capital city. They want a streamlined, professional, proactive, enabling authority that will take in hand the strategic planning of land use and economic development, the planning of our transport needs and the provision of our fire, police and emergency services. That authority will encourage our cultural life and will adopt an overall strategy to protect our environment.
    Londoners have already responded to what we have said. They understand that we understand. We are offering them a compact for London. They want our policies, and
    292
    they want a Labour Government. In their response to our forward-looking proposals for the capital, Londoners have shown that they are ready, willing and able to play their part in electing a Labour Government.
    4.18 pm
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, in line I to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    `deplores the habit of the Labour Party to run down London in a way which, if taken seriously, would damage its image abroad, deter foreign investors and bring glee to London's competitor cities overseas; emphasises that London is one of the world's finest cities with cultural and business attractions which have few rivals, a transport system as extensive as any in Europe and international hub airports which are the envy of others; welcomes the decision of the Government to relieve London of the unnecessary and highly wasteful Greater London Council; deplores Labour's plans to establish a still more wasteful London-wide body with powers to control the police which even the Greater London Council did not have; welcomes the Government's enormous investment programme in public transport and in infrastructure in Docklands; and salutes the Government's achievements of the last 12 years which have raised Britain's reputation abroad and with it that of her capital city'.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning are abroad. I know that they would have liked to speak in the debate. However, I am pleased that their absence gives me as a Londoner an opportunity to say that I am proud of this city and will happily compare its facilities and attractions with those of any city in the world. I take seriously my responsibility to speak up for London. I deplore Labour's attempts to denigrate our city, to make nothing of its recent achievements, and to blow its problems out of all recognition. The Opposition are doing all that they can to deter the foreign investor, to destroy tourism, and to damage our capital's economy.
    When people in Frankfurt and Paris read the motion tabled by the Labour party today, they will be whooping for joy. The difference between our city and those cities is that they do not have a Labour party to run them down in public.
    How much more honest it would have been to have said that, yes, London suffers problems—problems much like those of other cities. But to refer to problems such as dirty streets as Labour does in its motion is to score a splendid own goal. People in Westminster do not complain about dirty streets, but people in Lambeth, Camden, Haringey and Islington do because there the Labour boroughs are failing to do their duty.
    Many of London's problems are the problems of a successful city. Overcrowded tubes and congested roads are the sign of a city which is alive and flourishing, not a city on its knees.
    How much more honest it would have been of the Labour party to say that most people regard our traffic as better than that in Paris, Rome or Madrid, or to say that the M25, although crowded in the rush hours, is none the less Europe's longest orbital urban motorway, which has made possible a range of journeys which people could not contemplate before.
    How much more honest it would have been to acknowledge that London's vast underground system is 100 years old, one of the deepest in the world, requiring massive investment and today benefiting from a huge programme of investment of which the Labour party could

    293
    not have dreamt. It is all the more needed today because, during the years in which the GLC owned the underground, as the irresponsible populist that it was, it cut the fares and so cut investment too, which is now having to be made good.
    Mr. Ken Livingstone: Would the Minister care to point out to the House that the capital programme for London Regional Transport was under the control of the Government of the day via their majority in Parliament who were able to determine whether or not the money Bill was passed, and who, in preliminary negotiations with Treasury Ministers acting under Government instruction, told not just the Labour administration but the previous administration of Sir Horace Cutler that they would not allow the level of investment in London Regional Transport that successive GLC administrations wished?
    Mr. Portillo: I am delighted to have drawn the hon. Gentleman to his feet. Those watching the debate at home will welcome the opportunity to be reminded about the government of London that we have shaken off, which is amply represented by the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer the question by saying that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) spoke throughout his speech of under-investment, but last year investment in the underground was more than double in real terms what it was in the last year of the GLC, and our plans are to invest yet more in the underground.
    The Government have a comprehensive strategy for improving transport in London. During the next three years, London Regional Transport plans to invest more than £3 billion, supported by a Government grant of £2·5 billion—an increase of 120 per cent. in real terms over the previous three years.
    Talk to people in London. They have seen the opening of the new Thameslink service and the refurbishment of Liverpool Street station. We will be opening up docklands and poorly served areas of south-east London with the Jubilee line extension, which will cost more than £1 billion. The Bank extension of the docklands light railway will open on 1 July, and the Beckton extension will open at the end of next year. That will bring investment in the railway to some £700 million. A Bill providing for an extension to Lewisham is now before Parliament. We are also committed to another vast project: the east-west crossrail, which will link Paddington with Liverpool Street, bringing substantial relief to central London commuters. We have already safeguarded the routes of the Chelsea-Hackney underground railway line.
    Unlike the Labour party, whose recent policy document talks glibly of a transport policy for London that
    "takes traffic off the streets",
    we recognise the reality—that many journeys and deliveries in London cannot easily be made by rail. We also recognise that massive road building in London is unacceptable. We have a programme involving expenditure of nearly £2 billion over the next 10 years, to make selective improvements to our trunk road networks and junctions and to get rid of the worst bottlenecks and accident blackspots.
    294
    We also want to get more out of the existing road network, by means of better traffic management. The New Roads and Street Works Bill will lead to the proper co-ordination of street works. We plan a 300-mile network of red routes through our capital, on which traffic will move more easily, reliably and safely. Journey times on the pilot red route scheme established in north London have already been cut by up to 30 per cent.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister may well be right in saying that journey times for commuter traffic have been cut on the pilot red route. Takings in the shops along the route, however, have fallen dramatically, by 30 or 40 per cent., and the local people do not like the scheme and want it to be scrapped.
    Mr. Portillo: Clearly the Labour party is opposed to any action that may cause problems. A succession of Labour Members have objected to private Bills relating to public transport—because they have some constituency interest, or because they have been put up to it. Time and again, public transport proposals are presented to the House and Labour Members object to them. Here is a proposal to get the traffic moving—including the buses, which also benefit from red routes.
    Mr. Tony Banks rose—
    Mr. Portillo: Sure enough, as soon as a solution is advanced, we can look for the Labour Member who has jumped to his feet.
    Mr. Banks: Surely the Minister remembers that it was the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) who objected to the last private Bill relating to London's transport: indeed, he attempted to talk it out. The Minister should get his facts right. There are many reasons why hon. Members may object to Bills. It is not that we do not want transport infrastructure investment; we want to ensure that it is the right kind of investment.
    Mr. Portillo: I made no mistake in my facts, as the hon. Gentleman's remarks implicitly acknowledged. It remains absolutely true that many Labour Members oppose private Bills relating to public transport.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: The question of red routes greatly affects my constituency. Two main problems have arisen. The first is the speed at which the traffic now moves along the red route, and the failure of the police to take steps to reduce the speed and the resulting danger. The previous problem, which was caused by congestion, has been reversed.
    The second problem is experienced by a number of local tradesmen who find that parking bays sited on the advice of the local authority are too far from their shop frontages. Can that problem be examined?
    Mr. Portillo: One of the great sadnesses in my life is the fact that I am no longer a Transport Minister. I shall, however, ensure that my hon. Friend's points are taken up. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will be winding up the debate, and I shall draw those remarks to his attention.
    Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, although I had better not do so too many more times.
    Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) mentioned the problem of speeding vehicles. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that, in large parts of London, cameras are triggered automatically by vehicles that jump the traffic lights, and that the motorists responsible are prosecuted automatically. Is that not a substantial improvement in the policing of London?
    Mr. Portillo: It is certainly a good idea for us to be able to enforce the operation of traffic lights more effectively, for safety reasons.
    Let us look further ahead. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently announced a wide-ranging study of traffic congestion in urban areas, which will include consideration of the possible role of road pricing in London and other cities.
    The Labour party lives off grumbles and dissatisfaction as part of its election strategy. It does not matter that in the process it may demoralise our capital and do it untold harm.
    Let no one be fooled into believing that the answer to London's problems is a new strategic body. If people believe that the streets are dirty, let them look to their borough councils which have clear responsibilities and let them use the Government's Environmental Protection Act 1990 to oblige inefficient Labour councils to do their duty.
    If people are worried about those sleeping on the streets —they can be seen in every capital city—they should know that it is the Government who provided the London boroughs with a special homelessness initiative of £179 million to enable homeless families to be permanently housed, and that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has worked tirelessly with the voluntary sector to persuade people off the streets and into the direct access hostels which are there for them.
    If people are worried about transport, they should know, as I have explained, that transport policy in London is already brought together under a single roof in the Department of Transport. That includes the underground, Network South East, the strategic roads and the buses, and now those services have the resources that they need.
    If people are concerned about the need to co-ordinate planning, let me remind them that the Government have issued strategic planning guidance in place of the prescriptive, over-detailed GLC strategic framework which took 11 years to complete. In contrast, the present guidance as produced within a year of receiving the London planning advisory committee's advice. It allows the boroughs greater discretion in planning the development of their own areas and communities. They have quietly welcomed the new guidance as at last offering them a chance to bring forward comprehensive local plans that will reduce the old reliance on appeals to settle planning applications.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Portillo: No. I want to keep going for a while.
    As I have said, it took the GLC 11 years to produce its master plan and, when it finally emerged, inevitably it was out of date. It is no wonder that in those days the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) described the GLC as
    "the slowest bureaucracy this side of the Kremlin".
    Meanwhile, areas such as docklands were left to rot, neglected by the GLC and the London Labour boroughs.
    Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Portillo: I intend to quote the hon. Gentleman again. Would he like to save his intervention until then?
    The GLC is unlamented and unmourned. It spent £1 billion a year, it increased its spending by 170 per cent. in five years, and it employed nearly 20,000 people. For what? Who misses its grants to the Fleet street and Media Workers creche, Babies Against the Bomb or the South-East London Women for Life on Earth? It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that the sooner it was abolished the better.
    Mr. Dobson: I do not resile from either of the quotations. When the GLC was a major provider of housing and direct services such as that, it was far too vast and it was one of the slowest bureaucracies in the world. That was why I believed that it should be abolished. If the Minister had given the whole quotation, he would have realised that I wanted the GLC to be replaced by an authority covering the whole of London and with genuine strategic duties to carry out. Therefore, I am being perfectly consistent.
    Mr. Portillo: I shall deal shortly with the vastness of the body that may be proposed by the Labour party.
    The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) used to be the leader of the GLC. He said that he regretted that
    "the Marshall Report did not push and say, 'Abolish the GLC' because I think it would have released massive resources which could have been put to more productive use".
    No wonder—
    Ms. Mildred Gordon rose—
    Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall keep going.
    It is no wonder that the Labour party is ashamed of the GLC.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Not at all.
    Mr. Portillo: I wish that the Labour party would get its act together. Whenever the hon. Member for Dagenharn writes, appears in public or speaks on the radio—I am surprised that we keep hearing him on the radio, given his track record—he has to say that the Labour party does not intend to recreate the GLC. Therefore, it is clear that at least the hon. Member for Dagenham is ashamed of it. Unfortunately, when the hon. Gentleman says that he is not aiming to recreate the GLC, he is right: he is aiming to create something bigger, more bureaucratic and with wider powers.
    Mr. Gorst: Surely what my hon. Friend the Minister is saying is that, although there may be no objection to a voice and an intelligent head, there is every objection to a large body with the fat corporation that goes with it.
    Mr. Portillo: My pleasure in agreeing with my hon. Friend is mitigated to some extent only by the fact that he has stolen the next two pages of my speech.
    Mr. Gould: If the Minister is going to use the next two pages of his speech to endorse his hon. Friend's comments are we to hear another U-turn this afternoon and a commitment to precisely the voice for London which his hon. Friend commended to him?
    Mr. Portillo: Why does not the hon. Gentleman merely be patient and hear my speech?
    Let us look more closely at the recent Labour party document. In many areas, its so-called "streamlined" GLA would have more extensive powers than the GLC ever enjoyed. It would control the fire service, land-use planning, tourism, and culture, and it would have oversight of London Regional Transport and traffic movements. Most significantly of all, it is proposed to give the GLA authority over the police. The GLC in its day gave more than £2 million to so-called police monitoring groups. In 1983-84 it gave £8,500 to the Campaign to Curb Police Powers, nearly £18,000 to the Gay London Police Monitoring Group and nearly £30,000 to Camden Policing the Police. To those people it is now proposed to hand over authority for the police.
    The lure of such new powers prompted the hon. Member for Brent, East, the former leader of the GLC, to summon a meeting of the GLC in exile to be held in the House next week. The Labour leadership moved in to crush so transparent an exposure of its true intentions and cancelled the meeting.
    Mr. Tony Banks rose—
    Mr. Portillo: I shall give way at the conclusion of my speech.
    A spokeswoman for the Labour party said:
    "It was just an old boys reunion, if you like … I know they've never had a reunion before, but it was just an ad hoc sort of thing."
    None the less, we were assured that the hon. Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) "completely disassociated" themselves from the meeting, although why anyone should disassociate himself from "an old boys' reunion" or from
    "an ad hoc sort of thing"
    is not clear to me.
    Mr. Banks: The Minister is making a ridiculous fool of himself by trying to suggest that there was a conspiracy. The person who wanted to organise the get-together was Harry Kay, the vice-chairman of the council. I resisted it for a long time because I thought that it would be very expensive on my pocket to buy drinks for Harry and all his mates, but he managed to get Ken Livingstone to do it. Ken fell for it.
    Mr. Portillo: The old boy doth protest too much, I think.
    If people are concerned to hear a single voice for London, singing London's praises and promoting London to the outside world, bringing together the public and the private sectors, then I have some sympathy.
    We had in London a single organisation of the London boroughs, the London Boroughs Association. It did not support the GLC, so the Labour boroughs took their bat home. They went off to form a rival body—the Association of London Authorities—thus ensuring that London's voice would be cracked and discordant. Across London, Labour's antipathy to the private sector, to the City and to the people who make London work has meant that it holds back from joining with the wealth-creators to promote London. Indeed, today's motion shows that it wishes to denigrate London, not promote it.
    That same antipathy to enterprise has guided Labour Members in their opposition to the regeneration of docklands. They opposed the creation of the LDDC. They
    298
    carp about the immense achievements of the development there. They sing the praises of windswept, brutalist modern architecture in Paris, whilst attacking the beautiful fountains, parks, and riverside walkways of Canary wharf —simply because no bureaucrat in county hall had a hand in planning Canary wharf.
    Despite the Labour party, other world cities look with envy at docklands as the area where the city can expand, a vast area where new growth can occur without putting an intolerable burden on our traditional centres.
    If people want to know the truth about London, they should not ask the Labour party. They should ask the people who have money to invest. In a recent survey of American leading managers, 49 per cent. named London as their preferred European business location against 17 per cent. for Brussels and 17 per cent. for Frankfurt. London scored best on ease of access to markets, customers or clients, telecommunications, and the costs and availability of staff. It also scored highly on transport —yes, second only to Paris—availability of office space and on the climate that the Government create for business.
    Can anyone seriously imagine that such people's propensity to invest in London would be encouraged if London were once again represented by the hon. Member for Brent, East as leader? Can anyone imagine that Japanese business men would feel more warmly about investing in London if they were met at Heathrow by the hon. Gentleman? Can anyone seriously believe that London would stand taller just because we put another layer of bureaucracy over our heads?
    Can anyone seriously believe that London would enjoy the worldwide attention that it does today were it not for the fact that, after 12 years of Conservative government, Britain once again counts for so much in the world? London does not need another layer of government: it needs less Labour government in places such as Lambeth. Even the Labour party seems to agree, since it has now suspended Joan Twelves, the leader, and many of her colleagues.
    In 1987, it was the London Labour party which first set Labour nationally on the skids for the general election. The London Labour party's proposals to recreate the waste and silliness of the GLC, and extend its powers to the police, are another albatross around the neck of the Labour party. Labour's proposals are immoderate, wasteful and plain dangerous. That is why I urge the House to support the amendment.
    4.42 pm
    Mr. Ken Livingstone: No-one would wish to re-create the GLC in the form in which it existed. Let us remember that it was not created by a Labour Government. It was created by a Conservative Government under Harold Macmillan, in order to ensure Conservative control of the capital. In the debates and discussions that took place on the White Paper, many good ideas were suggested. Those ideas were endorsed by a broad consensus in local government, by academics and by the business community. But they were ignored in the legislation that created and set up the GLC.
    From its beginning, the GLC was flawed. It was caught between being a strategic authority without the powers to perform that function and a body which overlapped and conflicted with the boroughs in the provision of personal

    299
    services. That was recipe for conflict. The personal services should have been the responsibility of the boroughs. It was nonsense to create an authority that had such a vast housing stock. But the Government of the day did not want to create a proper strategic body, because it would have meant surrendering some of the powers of central Government to people elected by Londoners, who might take a different view from that of the Administration of the day. That is why I spoke against the GLC when I was a member of it. It had completely lost its way.
    Between 1981 and 1985, we made no pretence. We did our best with a flawed structure. In starting afresh, we shall not repeat that mistake. When I spoke in the debate which has been much quoted, I was thinking in particular of the metropolitan authority that controlled Toronto—one of the most successful cities in north America. Toronto has doubled its size and is one of the most attractive cities to live in. It has a strategic, slimline authority which co-ordinates and deals with major policy such as transportation, industrial regeneration, training and so on. But it does not get involved in day-to-day service delivery. That is the model that we shall wish to develop, explore and expand.
    When I hear some of the old nonsense that we have just had to put up with, I wish that I had tape-recorded some of my conversations with Ministers when I was leader of the GLC. I remind Conservative Members that, as leader of the GLC, I met some of them in their previous incarnations when they were blocking what we sought to do.
    When the Labour GLC was elected in 1981, we took up the legacy of Sir Horace Cutler to create a docklands tube by extending the Jubilee line out there. That proposal had been blocked under Sir Horace's administration and was still blocked. Within the first few weeks of the election, I went to see the Conservative Minister of Transport. I put our proposals to him. We were told that we could not implement them. It was not that we were asking the Government to give us the money—we were prepared to build the tube out to docklands out of our revenue.
    The GLC was opposed to borrowing. Conservative Members who pretend to be monetarists might like to examine the accounts of the GLC. The only borrowing for capital works that we undertook was for housing, because the Government of the day were prepared to pay about 80 per cent. of the cost. All the remaining capital works of the GLC were paid for as we went.
    During the lifetime of my administration at county hall, we almost halved the debt burden of the GLC in real terms. We do not want to hear this nonsense about profligacy. If central Government had reduced their debt burden by half in their 12 years, the nation would be in a much better state.
    We were not in conflict with the City. The chambers of commerce and industry came to see me as leader of the GLC in the midst of another downturn in the economy caused by the Government. They said that they were straining, and asked us to reduce the rates that year by 7·5 per cent. We co-operated with them and did so. We cut the rates twice. Why were we able to do so? It was as a result of the success of our transport policy.
    Mr. Terry Dicks: If we accept what the hon. Gentleman says, why did he and his deputies try to lie to the British public in the last years of the GLC and say that £140 million had to be cut from GLC
    300
    spending? The hon. Gentleman knows that his deputy was lying to him and that documents were shredded. In the end, the GLC had to increase expenditure, not reduce it by £140 million.
    Mr. Livingstone: There was an internal power struggle inside the GLC Labour group. Fortunately, I won it. It was remarkably similar to the problems which are afflicting the Government today. They are in conflict about the direction in which they should be moving.
    Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman is a liar.
    Mr. Livingstone: What we proposed—
    Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The hon. Gentleman is calling my hon. Friend a liar.
    Mr. Livingstone: It will not be the first time or the last time, but I am not terribly worried about it.
    We proposed a policy to use the engine of London Transport to make London more attractive. We cut the fares. However, we did not assume that that was all that had to be done. We wanted a programme for massive capital investment. We were blocked year after year by the Government.
    We also recognised that, to be truly effective, we needed a completely integrated transport system. We wanted to integrate British Rail services throughout great areas of south London, and other areas where it was the main form of transport, with London Transport. We wanted to put money into British Rail so that it could increase the frequency of its services to match those on the tube, and reduce its fares to the level of tube fares.
    I went to see the Conservative Minister of Transport in July 1981. I said that the GLC would give the money to British Rail to enable it to do what we proposed. The Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) who still represents the Conservative party in the House, said, "If you proceed with that policy, we shall cut the Government grant to British Rail by an equivalent amount in order to invalidate it." That was simple, narrow, partisan, ideological opposition to what we were doing.
    When people say that London does not want to go back to the days of the GLC, I say, "You have not been travelling on London transport." Every day, I am stopped by people on London transport. I am stopped not only by transport users, but even by drivers of black cabs, who are not usually members of the International Marksist Group or a natural constituency of the Labour party. One can hardly find anyone today who is dependent on public transport, or who drives around London in a car, who does not regret the passing of the GLC. They remember the first few years of the 1980s, which saw a reduction in traffic congestion and fares cuts, with a 5 per cent. fall in the numbers of commuter cars on the streets of London. Every taxi driver remembers that period, because they recollect being able to get around more easily. Industry was also able to get its goods and services to the point of production more easily.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Either the hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous, or his memory is failing him. The traffic reduction of which he speaks occurred

    301
    after the fares fair policy had been ruled illegal. What the hon. Gentleman is telling the House is simply not true—and he knows it.
    Mr. Livingstone: The hon. Gentleman is probably confused by the fact that the figures were published after the judges ruled that our policy was illegal. We did not have long. We cut the fares in October, and Lord Denning stuck his oar in in December. It was not until January or February that the traffic statistics were published. When we cut the fares a second time, in 1983, exactly the same thing happened. Some London firms even cancelled their car and petrol allowances and gave their employees bus and tube passes instead. They recognised the financial advantages of doing that, as well as the overall benefit to London.
    I urge those who say that Labour's policy will be an albatross around its neck that they should talk to Londoners. They should talk to the people waiting in a queue for a bus. They should ask people how much longer they wait today, and how much longer they must allow for their journey to work. I know from talking to people on buses that, whereas they used to allow half an hour to get to work, today they must allow 45 minutes. It is not all a matter of congestion, because there are fewer buses on the roads.
    When a bus does arrive, because it is on one-man operation, it stands there causing congestion while the driver has to take the fares. That is a disastrous practice in a heavily congested and densely populated city. That policy has been adopted not to increase mobility but to achieve cost savings, and it was pushed through under pressure from central Government. During the five years of the Labour GLC, we resisted all further moves to one-person operation.
    I was interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about the quality commission, which will give citizens the right to challenge the level of services. I would like to think that we will extend that concept nationwide. I fail to see why only Londoners should be given an opportunity to mobilise pressure on local authorities when they are not providing a proper level of service.
    It is clear from the faces of Conservative Members that they know that Labour's policy is popular. For the first time, a Labour Government will have the time to create a local government structure for London. In the past, local government reorganisation has been undertaken by Conservative Administrations, which I deeply regret. There has never been a system that accurately reflected basic socialist principles of efficiency.
    There is no inherent commitment to waste in socialism. When we ran London Transport, we made it clear that no extra jobs were to be created in its central bureaucracy, but that that bureaucracy was to be scaled down. We saw a shift of resources into direct service provision. I want to see that concept applied across the whole range of Government services. The new authority and the quality commission will give us an opportunity to begin reconstructing London's government.
    4.53 pm
    Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcome this debate on the government of London. We have been calling for one for some time to highlight the problems that exist in London, particularly in Labour borough councils.
    The motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and other Labour Members is incredible. In its references to pollution, homelessness, filthy streets and inner-city decay, the motion draws attention to precisely what we and so many Londoners know to be the state of affairs in Labour-controlled boroughs. That is where the BBC and ITV should take their cameras. They should show that the problems to which the motion refers are not those of Conservative boroughs, where one sees waste bins, swept streets and the provision of proper services.
    The motion refers also to realising London's
    "full potential as a manufacturing, trading, financial and cultural centre"—
    as if Labour could achieve that. One has only to examine the facts to know that London has already attracted numerous financial institutions. There are more American banks represented in London than in New York. Some 270 foreign banks have opened offices in Germany, but 478 have realised the need to open offices in London. The sum of $900 billion has been deposited in the form of Eurocurrency in London. That is one fifth of the world total and equivalent to all the Eurofunds deposited elsewhere within the European Community. That is the London that we understand, and as it is understood in Europe and the wider world—on the other side of the Atlantic and of the channel. Tourists spend £4·5 billion each year in London, and some 80 per cent. of that figure is in foreign currency.
    Labour's new policy document was rather appropriately launched as its leaders floated down the river a couple of weeks ago. They are trying to draw a smokescreen over London Labour authorities. Their vision of London is that represented by the Labour group whip on Brent council, Councillor Cyril Shaw, in his recent letter to the Labour members of Brent council:
    "We need, above all, to win back the confidence of the electorate, and that will not be possible if we are seen as a disorganised, undisciplined rabble."
    The New Statesman is not necessarily a journal that is friendly towards the Conservative party, but in a recent article, it stated:
    "Labour local authorities have provided the sole model of Labour in power in the past decade, and many have given the electorate a good fright."
    That is why Labour constantly attempts to portray London as a dirty city. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, that is a disgraceful allegation. Labour is running down London in the eyes of the rest of the world, thus proving that it is so carried away with its public relations designs that it is prepared even to damage the reputation of our capital in the minds of tourists and foreign business men.
    There are many examples of inefficiency in Labour authorities in London. In 1987, Brent council apparently lost £8·8 million in grant because it was five months' late in submitting budget details to the Government. Its failure to submit a claim for repairs after the hurricane in October 1987 cost it a further £750,000. Camden council, another model of Labour party control of a borough, has a startling record of financial mismanagement. Facts show

    303
    that the building department overcharged the housing department by £100,000 for jobs, some of which had not not even been started. Those are a couple of examples of how Labour party behaves in power, yet it is seeking to impose a further tier of government on London.
    My hon. Friends and I have often cited disgraceful examples of rent arrears and empty houses in Labour-controlled boroughs in London. The facts show that those authorities have the worst arrears in council rents and the most empty council houses, which could be used to house homeless people and solve, at a stroke, the problems of homelessness that we see so close to central London. Brent, which was Labour-controlled until two of its members sensibly crossed the floor recently, tops the list, followed by Lambeth, Southwark, Hackney, Islington, Ealing before it became Conservative-controlled —the Leader of the Opposition may have voted for the right party in the May elections—Haringey, Waltham Forest and Newham. Those councils, with a little contribution from Liverpool, are the worst in the country and are owed a total of £135 million in council rents. That is a disgraceful record.
    Education has been called the "big idea" by the Labour party. What would happen if London's education authorities were Labour-controlled? Presumably they would follow the examples of the authorities that are at the bottom of the league table and produce the worst results in Britain for their children, such as the unlamented Inner London education authority, which was close to the bottom of the league table, Waltham Forest, Brent, Newham and Barking. Those are examples of what we believe is typical of the Labour party's education standards.
    It is perhaps an opportune moment to quote what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) told the 1990 Labour party conference:
    "our nation and our children deserve the best; from us they shall get the best."
    As the press has revealed today, he is seeking the best for his children by sending his 11-year-old to a school in the City of Westminster, which is controlled by the Conservative party, and, as a new education authority following the abolition of ILEA, firmly intends to achieve fine results for its children.
    Mr. Dobson: Has the hon. Gentleman considered what the city of Westminster intends to do to finance its education service in the next year? Is he aware that it has made no allowance for inflation, and therefore will insist on substantial cuts in its education service? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who lives just across the river from Westminster, some of my constituents send their children to Westminster schools, just as Westminster parents send their children to schools in Camden because, under ILEA, boundaries did not matter. Is he aware that a substantial number of my constituents have written to complain about job cuts in Westminster's schools as a result of the policy of the Government and of that council?
    Mr. Tracey: That was a long intervention. The hon. Gentleman simply must talk to the hon. Member for Blackburn, who presumably is the Labour party's expert on education and who chooses, in the cool light of his own judgment, to send his child across the river to Westminster. Westminster has said that it will run an efficient education
    304
    authority. It will allocate resources to the classroom rather than to an over-fat bureaucracy, which was ILEA and the GLC before that.
    While the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is on the subject of Labour education authorities, he might like to note that Haringey recommended that education authorities should establish full-time posts both to promote anti-heterosexual attitudes in education and to fight to abolish all laws and procedures that seek to restrict sex education to the promotion of family values. That is what the Labour party is up to in the classroom and in its education authorities—quietly, of course, behind the scenes and not too publicly lest it ruins any slight chance that it might have of impressing the electorate with its public relations programme.
    We hear that the Labour party wants a Greater London authority—a lean and hungry beast, and quite unlike the GLC. The Herbert commission's idea of an all-London authority was for it to be lean and hungry, but that lean and hungry beast grew to have 22,000 staff and to spend £1,000 million. I suspect that this lean and hungry beast would soon grow into a rather fat creature similar to the GLC, which failed to be a strategic authority or to do anything with docklands or about traffic in south London. In 1964, the south circular road began its life under the GLC as a collection of signposts; in 1985, it finished its life under the GLC as a collection of signposts. Despite that, Labour Members claim that the GLC was a strategic authority. It took 11 years to produce a strategy, by which time it was out of date.
    There is no earthly reason why any sensible person in London should want a Greater London authority. It would have little to do—the GLC was responsible for only 10 per cent. of the administration of London—and would spend its time producing motions about South Africa, eastern Europe and Northern Ireland, as we know only too well. That is not the voice for London that we want.
    I should point out to the House an interesting comparison which I assume was made 10 days ago on television. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and I were presented with a film about Birmingham—a city which apparently has great civic pride and achieves great things for its people. Since then I have done a little research into Birmingham council and I do not believe that the people of Birmingham are too keen on it.
    A new Greater London authority might follow the example of the Labour-run Birmingham city council, especially with regard to foreign trips for councillors. Birmingham charge payers paid for 149 trips to 31 countries, including Puerto Rico, the Gambia, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia, the United States of America, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and the Soviet Union. The most popular destination was France, with 29 trips by Birmingham city councillors. Cannot we just imagine that that is what the 100 slimline, lean and hungry councillors of the new Greater London authority would be up to? It is not surprising that when Birmingham city council funded a MORI poll to find out whether the people of Birmingham liked their council, it found that three out of four residents thought that the council wasted public money and only a minority were in any way satisfied with the key services.
    Some of my hon. Friends want to speak in the debate, especially, I suspect, about transport matters, so I shall bring my remarks to a close. Londoners do not want another elected supra-tier authority. The Government are

    305
    inviting opinions from the rest of the country on unitary authorities. As long ago as 1979, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) told us that he thought that London should be run in that way. The people of London recognised unitary authorities as the best way to run London. That way, they know where the bills are coming from. The people of London feel that they get the most intimate and immediate administration of local areas from unitary authorities.
    It is a great tragedy that when the GLC was abolished, out of spite the Labour party decided to take its bat and ball home, pull out of the London Boroughs Association and form the Association of London Authorities. The LBA is the vehicle through which we should unify the voice of London, transmit it to the Government and, when necessary, bring it to the attention of the wider world. The Government should consider restoring the LBA as a body where the leaders of all 32 boroughs and the City of London come together.
    I have spoken to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Transport about transport in London. Travel and transport over the whole London conurbation should be overseen by a single Transport Minister, who would simply have the responsibility for travel and transport in London. In that way, we could move towards the kind of administration that our people desire for the smooth running of London. We certainly do not want our capital city to be run down, as the Labour party has run it down both in the debate and too regularly in recent weeks.
    5.14 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the opportunity for this debate. It has already shown evidence of the trouble caused when party politics overrides the views of Londoners.
    In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) correctly stated the litany of complaints of Londoners about how degraded the city is. Ministers should not pretend that there are not abundant and regular complaints from Londoners about how awful it is to live and work here. But the hon. Member for Dagenham failed to deal with one of the chief complaints of Londoners—the fact that, where the Labour party is in government, it governs badly, wastes resources and gives a bad service. A MORI opinion poll commissioned in Southwark revealed that 85 per cent. of people are dissatisfied with services in Southwark.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: A Labour council.
    Mr. Hughes: Exactly. London Labour councils are generally doing a bad job. If the hon. Member for Dagenham is to persuade Londoners that London would be better under Labour, he has a lot of persuading to do.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities says that it is terrible to run London down because London is wonderful and there are no problems, or if there are problems, they are all the fault of Labour boroughs. That is not true either. One of the obvious failings of the past decade or so has been the Government's failure to deal with strategic issues—a fact recognised not only by politicians but by many objective commentators, too.
    306
    In common with other hon. Members, I received a document today from Hillier Parker, one of the largest London firms dealing with development. The covering letter said:
    "Over the last eighteen months, Hillier Parker have voiced the property industry's growing concern that the near critical absence of any strategic planning regime in the capital is the consequence of a lack of London-wide coordination in local government".
    Both the Labour party and the Conservative party pretend that they have all the answers. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) fears that, if there is a new Londonwide body, the councillors will get on the gravy train and start taking trips round the world. They may or they may not, depending on who they are, but that accusation, coming from one of the Members of this House, so many of whom float around the world at public expense, is a bit rich.
    London is a city where no party has the support of a majority of the people. At the moment, the city is balanced. The Londonwide bodies have no overall party control. There is not a majority of London boroughs run by Labour, by the Conservatives or by the Liberal Democrats. Opinion polls have been referred to, but when opinion polls ask people which party they would support, no party gets a majority of the support of Londoners, either.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham was right when he said that the latest poll revealed that 43 per cent. Would support Labour, 39 per cent. the Conservatives and 13 per cent. the Liberal Democrats. That represents the same sort of balance. There would be no overall control, because there is no overwhelming support for any one party in London, as is also evidenced by the votes cast in local elections. Last year's May elections in London followed the same pattern—the Tories had 37·7 per cent., Labour 38·7 per cent. and the Liberal Democrats 14·4 per cent. Let us be clear that no party can claim to speak for London.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is making important points about representation in London. Does he agree that the people who voted Labour in London would be outraged and astonished if they knew that only three of the 23 Labour Members representing London would bother to be here for the debate, and to hear the hon. Gentleman's important speech?
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for that last comment. To be fair, I must add that more Labour Members were here earlier, although what the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has said is on the record. It is surprising, as the Labour party has mounted such a big campaign to persuade people of their commitment to changing London, that, in a debate lasting only three hours, called by the Labour party, so few Labour Members are here.
    Mr. Keith Vaz: Where are the Liberals?
    Mr. Hughes: I shall come to where the London Liberal Members are in a moment.
    The Labour party has come up with a list of proposals, the general thrust of which is correct. My party in its present form believes, and the Liberal party for many years previously believed, in regional government for London. I do not know whether hon. Members have noticed one interesting fact about Labour's document. It

    307
    does not cite a single Labour authority in London as an example of good practice. Indeed, it cites only one council, the London borough of Sutton, and that is run by the Liberal Democrats. I have checked and double-checked, and I can find not one Labour borough cited as an example of good local government practice.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman cannot blame Labour for that.
    Mr. Hughes: No, I cannot blame Labour for that, because Labour examples of good local government practice are difficult to find.
    The London county council was generally well supported and well respected. The Greater London council, which was created by the Tories, was never appreciated as correctly designed. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was correct to say that it was not the right size or shape and did not have the right powers. Like other colleagues, I opposed its abolition, because the Government did not produce an alternative. That is why we also opposed the abolition of the Inner London education authority.
    Mr. John Marshall rose—
    Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way. I should like to press on a little.
    We now have the chance of a review. The Government have said that they wish to review local government, but not in London. Everywhere else can contemplate having a different form of local government, but not London. That is the wrong stance and the wrong approach, because Londoners, as much as anyone else, can hold the view that their area needs to be reformed. Opinion polls show that a substantial majority of people are in favour of London having a coherent voice. According to the last poll, 67 per cent. of Londoners said that, in one form or another, London should have a single coherent voice.
    The case for a strategic authority is well supported by all objective commentators outside this House. London is almost unique among the world's large cities in not having that co-ordination. Obvious examples of that need are regularly apparent. It is needed, for example, for planning London's transport system, instead of discovering that the land that is needed has already been sold off, so that land for a new railway or tube must, belatedly, be found somewhere else. We have not integrated bus, train, underground and riverbus services or planned such services with interchangeable tickets, and the inability to ensure that docklands is developed for the benefit of all the people of docklands, with democratic accountability, has shown the folly of policies that many have come to regret.
    We must decide where to go from here. There are several examples of the weakness of Labour's document. First, it is clearly not yet Labour policy to provide any new strategic London authority with a substantial sum of money. It is no good coming up with a new structure without the money to finance it. Secondly, there is no clear timetable in Labour's document. Labour says that it will produce a new London authority at the same time as introducing devolution in the rest of the country. However, there is a strong argument that London should have its authority earlier than that, before the others. That is what Liberal Democrats believe.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: Before Scotland?
    Mr. Hughes: No, before any other region in England. Thirdly, Labour claims that the authority would be electorally accountable and, like me, supports the idea of annual elections. However, Labour fights shy of proportional representation and does not endorse the fundamental method of real accountability, which is to make the people who are elected reflect the views of the electorate.
    Fourthly, the Labour document talks about boundaries, but it will be the Labour party that will decide the boundaries, not the people of London.
    Labour's fifth proposal is the establishment of a quality commission. This is interesting, and it gives the game away. In 1990, Labour would have given the quality commission
    "powers to require a council to invite alternative providers from the public, voluntary or private sector to deliver a customer contract"
    if it was not working. However, the new document does not give any such powers. It states:
    "In exceptional cases, the commission would have powers to send in a management advisory team to a particular authority if there was widespread public concern about the breakdown in the provision of a particular service."
    Although people could complain to the quality commission, the commission would not have the power to do anything about it.
    Finally, Labour's document contains some wonderful double-talk about the City of London:
    "Within London, we will meet the party's long standing commitment to abolish the local government powers of the Corporation of the City. We will consult with the Corporation and others to ensure the ceremonial duties now carried out by the Lord Mayor continue and that other institutions of value are maintained."
    When launching the document, the hon. Member for Dagenham apparently said that the City corporation would remain to elect the lord mayor, although it would not have any power other than to elect the lord major—how ridiculous. Either there should be a Lord Mayor for the whole of London or the lord mayor should remain in the City. I support the lord mayor being elected from the whole metropolis, but the issue should not be fudged as it is in the Labour party's document.
    Mr. John Marshall rose—
    Mr. Shersby rose—
    Mr. Hughes: I shall give way just once—to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who rose earlier.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he saying that he would do away with the City corporation and with the lord mayor who is elected by the City corporation?
    Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly reasonable question, and I shall answer it as I come to the end of my speech.
    Mr. Shersby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way briefly on the question of the lord mayor?
    Mr. Hughes: Very well.
    Mr. Shersby: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are two cities in what we know as London—the London borough of the city of Westminster, which has its own lord mayor, and on which body I served for several

    309
    years, and the City of London? Do the Liberal Democrats propose to abolish the role of the lord mayor of the city of Westminster?
    Mr. Hughes: I shall deal with that quickly. Of course the city of Westminster should have its own lord mayor. Indeed, some of us in Southwark, where we have two cathedrals, believe that we should have a lord mayor and be a city ourselves, but that is another argument. I shall come to the wider issue of the lord mayor of London in a moment.
    My colleagues and I believe that the principles that should govern local government include starting from the bottom up and ensuring that local government bodies reflect natural communities and that their boundaries reflect the boundaries of those communities. Government should be at the lowest tier possible. We should have parish and community councils in London. They are permitted everywhere else in England but not, for some reason, in our capital city. There should also be a strategic regional tier of government, devolved from Whitehall, with powers that should be exercised Londonwide but by a democratically accountable London body.
    Between those tiers—here I believe that I carry with me the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson)—there is a strong view, which runs against the tight conspiracy of the Tory and Labour parties generally, that the present London boroughs are not the right size. At a pensioners' meeting in Bermondsey this morning, I put my view that, if we had a fixed regional authority, we could have much smaller boroughs, as used to be the case. That was met with overwhelming approval, because such boroughs would reflect the size of the local communities, whether in Holborn, Bermondsey, Camberwell or Southwark.
    Finally, we must give local government the power to levy its own taxation. It is no good making local government dependent upon Government handouts, which is what Labour does, because, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is always telling us in debates about money, Government handouts depend on the economy being able to allow that money to be handed out, and there is no guarantee of that.
    We should stop the dog fight. We should stop pretending that any of us had the right to impose our view about the government of London on Londoners. If hon. Members argue here that the people of Vilnius, Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania should have the right to self-determination, why should not the people of London have the same right? Let them decide. Let them decide where their boundaries should be. I read that the mayor of Croydon would like Croydon to be regarded as Surrey, not a Greater London authority. Let the people of Croydon, or Bexley, or Bromley, decide for themselves. Let the people, not the politicians, decide.
    If the people want London boroughs of the present size or much smaller boroughs such as the old metropolitan ones, let them decide. I think that they would decide for a smaller metropolitan borough, in which government is much closer to home. If they want parish and community councils, Londoners should, like those in the rest of England, decide. If they want a regional authority, let the people of London decide that, too.
    310
    In answer to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for Hendon, South, I and my party believe that the City of London corporation should be abolished. Then the lord mayor of London could be elected to represent the metropolis as it is eventually defined. Londoners should decide that matter as well. If Londoners think that the anomaly of an electorate made up of a few people in the City—business people and people such as myself still with a vote as a legacy of my days as a practitioner at the Bar in the Temple—is suitable to elect the lord mayor of London, so be it. Let all Londoners decide what the electorate should be. I think that they would decide that the present system is anomalous and out of date and ought to change.
    I hope that Londoners decide that London government should be based in county hall and that we should not lose county hall to the private sector, which is now the risk. They should also decide the question that the Secretary of State has placed on the agenda in his consultation paper which we await: how should local government be run? Should it be run as now, when councillors elect a local leader, or should we elect for each level of authority a small number of councillors either with an elected mayor or five or six people elected to carry out the tasks of running transport, housing and so on? I favour a move in that direction, but let Londoners decide.
    None of the political parties has the majority support of Londoners.
    Ms. Diane Abbott: Speak for yourself.
    Mr. Hughes: I speak for the hon. Lady too. The Labour party does not have majority support in London.
    Ms. Gordon: Come off it.
    Mr. Hughes: The Labour party does not have a majority in London; neither do the Tories or the Liberal Democrats.
    Any party which imposed its will on London would be unreasonable and would create the same hostility and anomaly, and thus the desire for change, for which we have fought for the past 20 years. Let us have a fair system for electing the type of government that the people want, and less arrogance from the politicians.
    5.32 pm
    Sir William Shelton: After the press conference of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), given while he was floating down the Thames, I was rung up by the press and asked if I thought that London was in crisis. I said that I did not think so; that Lambeth was in crisis, not London. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends that the way in which the hon. Gentleman rubbished our capital city was disgraceful, yet he had the clear support of Labour Members. It was wrong and does no good. It is reasonable to criticise, but not to rubbish London as he did. He spoke for 30 minutes and spent 20 or 25 minutes criticising London, but only about seven or eight minutes suggesting solutions. I shall come to them later.
    I was a member for Wandsworth on the Greater London council in its glorious years from 1967 to 1970. They were glorious because the council was Tory-controlled. Even then I thought that the GLC and the Inner London education authority, of which I was chief

    311
    whip, contributed little and cost a great deal. Today, we have heard of a possible son of the GLC—a new Greater London authority.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), I was taken aback by the words that the hon. Member for Dagenham chose when he spoke of a lean and hungry animal, or whatever it was. As my hon. Friend said, everything that is lean and hungry gets fattened up. If the hon. Gentleman had said that the new authority would be neutered, muzzled and on a lead, we might have been slightly reassured. I certainly was not reassured when the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said that the Opposition would have the opportunity to set up this new tier of London government on true socialist principles. I just wish that every Londoner could have heard him. They would have shuddered at his remarks.
    It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton spoke before me as much of my speech is along the same lines. I agree with him that the London Boroughs Association could become a forum for the discussion of Londonwide matters. I see no reason why that should not happen. There are occasions when such matters should be discussed and, presumably, that is the purpose of the LBA. Rather than build new layers of bureaucracy upwards, that forum seems to be the way forward. Conservative Members are trying to move decision making down to the people. For example, we have introduced local management of schools by governors and parents and have attempted to move decision making downwards on council estates so that residents take over their management. I am sure that that will be the trend for the next decade, rather than building tiers of government upwards at great cost.
    As I represent Lambeth, my hon. Friends will understand why I express dismay that a Greater London authority may one day be Labour-controlled. Lambeth is absolutely typical of Labour control. Lambeth is cutting education, although I must tell my hon. Friends that it is not closing youth clubs, as has been reported, but merely youth centres, which will re-open in September.
    Mr. John Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the shadow Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), is choosing to have his children educated in Conservative-controlled Westminster rather than in Labour-controlled Lambeth?
    Sir William Shelton: I understand that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) lives in Lambeth and, I am afraid, that decision shows his good sense.
    Lambeth council is cutting youth provision and social services, just to name a few. The automatic reason that the council gives is that its community charge has been capped. I am trying to find out the truth about that and I have had discussions. So far as I can see, the cuts cannot and should not spring from capping because Lambeth's standard spending assessment for education is £131 million. I understand that Lambeth proposes to spend £18 million less than that. I may be wrong, but that is what I understand, and it is difficult to forget such figures. The council is raiding the education budget for other purposes. In a recent debate, I used the phrase "raiding the education budget" and Hansard made it "raising". Lambeth is raiding, not raising, the education budget and capping has been blamed.
    312
    So far as I can tell from the papers in my possession, last year's budget in Lambeth was £285 million. This year the budget has been capped to £311 million—a cash rise of £26 million or 9 per cent. If inflation this year is 6 per cent., that represents a rise—admittedly a small one—in real terms. Why is Lambeth making enormous cuts? Every letter it sends out is about the cuts. It is as though it is flying that fact from the flag on the town hall—I would not be surprised if it did. The position is extraordinary, but I suppose it is due to the bad debts that Lambeth must service. If that is the case, I just wish that the Government could be more helpful in allowing us to roll those debts over a longer period, because it is damaging education in my constituency.
    Mr. Shersby: Can my hon. Friend tell the House the level of non-collection of the community charge in Lambeth? From an election campaign in which I participated in Lambeth, I understand that a large percentage of people do not pay their community charge and that, before it was introduced, many people did not pay their rates either.
    Sir William Shelton: My hon. Friend is right, but I do not know the answer to his question and I doubt whether Lambeth knows it. Many of my constituents have not received even their community charge bills for last year. Last November, some 14,000 first bills had not been sent out. I received a letter from three members of an extremely distraught household that had received eight different paying-in books in the space of 10 days, each with a letter demanding immediate payment. To put it mildly, there has been some confusion in the management there.
    May I make a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport? Consultation will take place throughout the country to seek the views of citizens and residents about how local government should be organised and what sort of local government they would like to have. Why should my constituents, Londoners, be denied that? We, too, have our problems. My hon. Friend may be aware of the massive move in Clapham and Streatham to return to the borough of Wandsworth, from which they were wrenched in 1965. I recognise that that is a matter for the local government Boundary Commission, not for the Government. Nevertheless, surely the constituents of all London Members have the right to be consulted about the construction of local government in London. That issue should be given some consideration.
    5.43 pm
    Miss Kate Hoey: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton). As one of the three Members for Lambeth present, I am sure that he would like me to mention that, today, all three Lambeth Members had a productive meeting with the new leader of Lambeth council and the new chair of education. What Lambeth now needs most is to be taken out of the headlines—[Interruption.] It would be helpful if Lambeth were now given a period to settle down under a new leadership and to continue trying to improve its services under difficult circumstances.
    The subject of the debate is the government of London and the need for an overall strategic authority. We seek not to re-create the Greater London council, as was firmly stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), but to create a new streamlined authority to deal

    313
    with the problems which everyone in London accepts exist. As someone who chose to live and work in London, I am amazed that Conservative Members accuse us of not being proud of living in London. It is precisely because we are proud of living and working in London that we wanted this debate. We want to redress some of the problems that London now faces, many as a direct result of the fact that there is no strategic authority. We initiated this debate because we have pride in and care about London.
    It is rather sad that, in his opening remarks, the Minister implied that this debate would stop tourists coming to London. Tourists will come no matter how run-down the city becomes, but we want tourists to leave London with a better impression than they have been getting recently. We want them to be able to see London as I first saw it some 20 years ago when I came to this part of the United Kingdom. They no longer see the city that I saw when I first came—as an artistic and cultural centre. We want London to be prosperous and to contribute to the prosperity of Britain. We want to put right some of the things that have gone wrong.
    There will be agreement throughout London that, to achieve those aims, transport must be co-ordinated. Many Conservative Members know that, if they are honest enough to admit it. One has only to speak to those who travel regularly by London Transport to know that there are real problems.
    A strategic overview is needed in other areas, too. I shall not discuss housing because other hon. Members will go into more detail on that issue and the problem caused by the increase in homelessness, the shortage of affordable housing and the necessity for people to move around in London. There must be co-ordination to solve those problems and to ensure that affordable housing is built.
    I feel strongly about the fact that sporting facilities and sport generally are no longer co-ordinated, so that in future young people will have less opportunity. Who is funding, and who will fund in future, the strategic voluntary initiatives for sport and recreation? The London Borough Grants Committee which was set up to bring together grants for voluntary activities after the Greater London council was abolished, has failed to fund many of the genuine strategic projects, such as the London Playing Fields Association. The Sports Council grant for London, which was initially increased to get over the distribution problems when the GLC was abolished, has been reduced in recent years. The Sports Council expects local authorities to pick up the tab. Naturally, they are unable to do so and many developments are now being stopped.
    Who will look after the capital projects in London on a strategic level? A good example exists in Southwark where, at Herne Hill cycle stadium, there were plans for a velodrome. This country is lacking a facility for cycling, but the cost will fall mainly on Southwark, which cannot afford such a strategic facility that will be used by people from throughout London and the country.
    Who will replace the ice rink in the London borough of Richmond when it closes in 1992? Who is thinking about such problems now? Ultimately, because there is no overall authority to consider them, each borough is interested only in what happens in its little patch.
    In the London borough of Epsom—[Interruption.] I count it as near enough to be a London borough. The
    314
    London Residuary Body is responsible for 70 acres of playing fields, including the Priesthill playing field in Epsom. It has been lying empty and idle since the GLC and ILEA were abolished, and no one is taking overall responsibility for it.
    Although many hon. Members are more than happy that Manchester won the bid for the Olympics—hon. Members throughout the House will do our best to ensure that Manchester wins the Olympic bid—London did not even have an equal chance to compete. We did not even begin with "level playing fields", because we had no voice in the matter and no person or group who could sign the contract with the British Olympic Association. I do not think that is acceptable.
    Therefore, this debate is about not just the issues that are seen as up front—transport, housing and the overall environment in London—but those issues that together make our capital city a great place where people can feel proud to be. We cannot allow the deterioration to continue. Something must be done, and the Labour party's proposal to recreate a streamlined Greater London authority is the way forward to that.
    5.50 pm
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I agreed with the abolition of the Greater London Council because I considered it wasteful, extravagant and politically motivated. It was intensely disliked, and the very image of it is still disliked in my constituency. It had a budget of £1 billion, about £150 to £200 per man, woman and child in London. People talk about the community charge, but the GLC was an imposition on the people of London carried out by the then Labour Government.
    The GLC also affected employment. In 1983, the London Chamber of Commerce survey showed that the cost of the GLC on London meant that employment had decreased when otherwise it would have increased. We have heard much about where the money went. It was not a vast amount but my constituents were irritated about where it went. It was spent on the Gay Police Monitoring Unit and Babies Against the Bomb—
    Ms. Abbott: The right hon. Gentleman lists the same old things.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: The Opposition do not like me talking about this. They do not want it in the papers tomorrow.
    Mr. Livingstone: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I shall give way to only one Member from each party.
    Mr. Livingstone: Although it caused some controversy when we gave a grant to a group to ensure that the police were not discriminating against lesbians and gay men, it seems that our message has got across, because the Metropolitan police are actively taking on board those lessons and trying to eliminate prejudice based on sexual orientation. Surely the right hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall give some more examples —the English Collective of Prostitutes, the Police

    315
    Accountability for Community Enlightenment—presumably, people go around shining torches—the Women's Peace Bus, and a marvellous thing that I do not understand, the See Red Women's Workshop. If anyone can understand that, one would be able to write a PhD thesis backwards.
    There were cheers in my constituency when the GLC was abolished. As hon. Members will have expected me to do, I spoke in my constituency this morning and warned of the great spectre rising again like something in Dickens coming to destroy us.
    It is said that the new organisation will be lean and hungry at the beginning—my hon. Friend the Member for Steatham (Sir W. Shelton) referred to that—but it will grow. It is to have two powers which it did not have before, involving health and the police. It reminds me of the old Lancashire tale of an illegitimate child born in the 19th century. When the child's mother was asked, "What is your excuse?" she replied, "It is only a little one." But it grew, and the new London organisation will grow in the same way—
    Mr. Norris: Will my right hon. Friend say that again?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Do I want to do it again? I shall do it in the second act. Others must read what I have said and then they can take part in the second act with me. I shall say it in less of a Lancashire accent next time.
    The only difference with the new organisation will be that, presumably, the Labour party will try to convey the image of Glenda Jackson, not that of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who foisted the GLC on Londoners.
    The Government must recognise three problems in London. The first is the state of public transport, which is in uproar. From my constituency 20,000 people a day use the underground. The number of escalators that do not work must be the highest anywhere. Londoners do not like the breakdowns and delays and do not know why the system cannot be made better. Public transport is a sort of strange quango which is responsible to nobody. That will not do, and the Government must act either by privatising the service or putting in more money. For 100 years we have lived on the capital of the Victorians. The system needs new lines and more expenditure and, certainly before the next general election, the Government will have to tackle the problem. If the money is not available, the Government will have to privatise the service and allow people to build other lines.
    Yesterday, I watched the beating the retreat with some of my hon. Friends, and I recommend it to any hon. Member. One service that works in this country is that of the armed forces, and I shall not vote for any reduction in those forces because they are probably the best training ground in the country. Instead of putting young people in all the training schemes advocated by the Secretary of State for Employment, they should put them in the armed forces for two or three years and then they would be able to do something afterwards. Is there a spare general to take charge of London Transport? He should be told that he has two years to solve the problem or will go to the scaffold—that would concentrate the mind.
    Secondly, there must be a voice for London. Whether that is achieved by bringing together the various boroughs or in some other way, we need a voice for London. Otherwise, hon. Members' views will be affected by those
    316
    of their constituents. There must be a voice to speak for the whole of London on such issues as the Olympics. Perhaps there should be an elected mayor working with the boroughs. That is a radical suggestion, and I must not become radical, or I shall worry many of my constituents and my wife.
    Thirdly, we cannot have local government reorganisation in the rest of the country if we do not have it in London and the metropolitan districts. If that is a plot hinted at by hon. Members from both sides of the House this afternoon, I shall not take part in it. I shall vote against any local government reorganisation until there is reorganisation in London. My constituents in Brent did not want the last local government reorganisation. I mean no disrespect to the Government, under whom it was introduced, but my constituents did not feel that they were linked to that reorganisation. Even the name of my district is anonymous—no one knows where it is and Brent Cross and Brent Cross station are not within it. There is no Brent oilfield, there are no Brent geese, so they call it Brent. During the war, we took away the names of stations because we feared an imminent German invasion. We must have then thought that a Russian invasion was imminent so it was best if no one knew where their district was.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Dicks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) because he has been bobbing up and down and I am worried about his health.
    Mr. Dicks: My right hon. Friend mentioned the financing of the London underground. He should be aware that the London underground authorities told the Select Committee on Transport that money was not the problem, and that in 1987, 1988 and 1989 the capital allocation had been underspent. Therefore, something other than money must be causing the problem.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: The management must be changed immediately if it cannot use the money.
    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about consulting people. There must be consultation about boundaries in London. If people are put in districts where they do not belong, they resent it because it is not right. If we stroke the cat one way, it purrs, and if we stroke it the other way it growls. Good government is when the cat is stroked so that it purrs. I would expect there to be full consultation in London on whether we should return to smaller districts, so that we can determine that people know their own districts.
    The Government must do something about those three problems. It is no good merely attacking the Labour party's plans. If we tackle those problems in the correct way, it will help us, not only in London, but in the general election.
    5.58 pm
    Mr. Tony Banks: After the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) listed the central office bê
    te noires—those grants given out by the GLC—he spoke a great deal of good sense, and I hope that Ministers will heed what he said. He is the only

    317
    Conservative Member to have addressed strategic issues in London. He mentioned transport, the reorganisation of London local government and a voice for London. I do not want to do the right hon. Gentleman any more damage by praising him, but he was the first Conservative Member to elevate the debate and talk about the strategic interests of London as a whole.
    I always try to stick by the old saying that in politics we should not get angry: we should get even. Unfortunately, I usually fail, because I am still angry about the abolition of the GLC and how it was done. I am now beginning to get the sweet smell of revenge and getting even because I know that there will be a Labour Government and a restoration of strategic local government in London. That is what Londoners want and it is what they had until 1986 —97 years of strategic government in London. We had the Metropolitan Board of Works, superseded by the London county council and then by the Greater London council. The new Greater London Authority will resume the process of the evolution of government in London, and Londoners will greatly welcome that.
    Our capital is the only one in the world that does not have city wide local government. We all know why the GLC was abolished—because of the ideological fixation of that second-rate bigot, that authoritarian who inhabited 10 Downing street at the time. I well remember her predecessor saying how appalled he was when he realised that the Conservative party had committed itself to the abolition of the GLC. Londoners did not want that, and at the time not even a majority of Conservative Members in London wanted it. But because it was ordered by "she who must be obeyed" it was pushed through. Despite all the evidence against them, there are still Conservative Members fighting in the Thatcherite bunker, but they are out of time and out of place now—and they will soon be out of office. Londoners are looking forward to that.
    Abolition was never popular with London. I remind Conservative Members that in March 1986, on the eve of abolition of the GLC, a Harris opinion poll showed that 81 per cent. of Londoners thought it important to have a single body in the capital to provide and co-ordinate strategic services; 22 per cent. of Londoners approved of abolition; 62 per cent. disapproved; and 59 per cent. believed that matters would be worse after abolition. How right they were.
    The 1986 opinion poll findings are remarkably consistent with the latest findings carried out by the Evening Standard.
    Mr. John Marshall rose—
    Mr. Banks: Two thirds of all Londoners are revealed as believing that London should have an elected authority. I support the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Brent, North of a mayor or a Minister for London, incidentally. Two thirds of Londoners believe that London needs an authoritative voice. The same proportion believe that services in the capital have got worse. So whatever the Government have done to deceive themselves about abolition and its aftermath, Londoners have not been deceived. They understand full well how badly services have deteriorated since abolition, and Tory Members deceive themselves if they think that matters can improve without a strategic body for London.
    318
    All informed comment agrees with me on this. Sir Ralf Dahrendorf, in his London Weekend Television London lecture, and Dr. John Rigg, of the Henley Centre for Forecasting, have given their unanimous verdict. They maintain that London is in decline, that it is unplanned and unco-ordinated, that it is dirty, and that it lacks a sense of identity and of civic pride. This last has all but disappeared in London. There is no focal point in the capital, and that is what people complain about so much. LWT's "The London Programme" poll showed that 50 per cent. of Londoners would leave the capital if they could, and only 39 per cent. said that they liked living in London.
    We know what the major complaints are. The right hon. Member for Brent, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) mentioned one of them—poor transport. London's roads are breaking up and are riddled with potholes which are a danger to drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike. The infrastructure of transport has been allowed to fall into dereliction through lack of investment. Belatedly, the Government are recognising the need to push money into transport. Every scheme that the Minister proposes for investment in public transport will be welcomed by us. We shall of course offer constructive criticism. It is rather late in the day, however, to be taking investment decisions that should have been taken over the past decade, but the Government are trying to rush them through now before a general election.
    Certainly there is conflict between central Government and city government in Paris. President Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac are always fighting, but they are fighting over who can bestow the greatest prizes on the capital of France. They take great pride in their capital. London, on the other hand, has become a battlefield between the Government and the Opposition in recent years. We should be able to get together and talk about our capital. The Opposition remain ready to sit down at any time with the Secretary of State to discuss the reorganisation of local government in London; yet, as the right hon. Member for Brent, North correctly said, that is the one aspect that has been ruled out of the new proposals on local government structures.
    We are prepared to sit down and discuss the best way to advance our capital city. We have to live in it together, so we should try to improve it together. The rest of the world's capitals organise their local affairs much better than we do. Ministers come out with a great deal of propaganda about how popular London is with overseas visitors, but they should read what is being said by many involved in commerce and industry, who offer many criticisms of transport in London, of planning in London and of the quality of life in London. All these factors are taken into account when business people are deciding whether to locate their financial enterprises here. We are losing out badly to cities such as Frankfurt and Paris because their administrations understand what is needed and do not operate on the ad hoc planning approach adopted by our Government.
    The confusion and delay surrounding the route of the channel tunnel to London perhaps sums up best the lack of strategic thinking by the Government. The French have managed to get it right, but we are still dithering. I know that there are many political considerations—how, for instance, to avoid marginal Conservative constituencies—but this is no way to plan the south-east's major transport investment decision.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the document on London published by the Labour party, it is clear that the first action that his party would take would be to postpone any decision on the channel tunnel rail link for six months?
    Mr. Banks: That refers to six months from our election, so as to ensure that decisions that will affect the economic life of this country for decades to come are based on strategic considerations, not narrow party considerations such as those that the Government adopt in respect of the route from Folkestone to London and of the siting of the second channel tunnel station.
    Labour's commitment to restoring an elected strategic body for London will be welcomed by a majority of Londoners. I am proud to say that I will be fighting the election in Newham and around London on the policy paper launched by the Leader of the Opposition a couple of weeks ago. The Greater London authority will not be the GLC—why should it be? London's strategic government has evolved in 97 years—that is, until the decision to abolish the GLC. When we restore such a body after the next election, everyone will appreciate that abolition was nothing more than an aberration in the flow of London's history. The great majority of Londoners will welcome the new Greater London authority.
    I share the disappointment expressed by the right hon. Member for Brent, North that our document does not mention the possibility of a directly elected London mayor, which is an idea whose time has come. It captures the imagination of Londoners, and I for one will continue to campaign for the proposal to be put to the House for debate—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham seems to be suggesting that I might put my name forward as a candidate for such a post, although I understand that there will be competition from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). That is fine by me; it is the sort of constructive competition that the next Labour Government will bring to the affairs of London.
    I was also delighted to see that our document restates the need to abolish the City of London. It is about time that that anachronistic local government set-up was abolished. It makes no great sense. The Government have simply used the City as an overall strategic authority. It has been given many functions and powers that extend well beyond its limits of one square mile. In any rational examination of the structure of local Government in London, we shall say, as Mr. Gladstone said, that it is about time the City of London was abolished. I hope that we shall retain the ancient and honourable office of Lord Mayor of London, however. To my colleagues who think that I am being rather reactionary, I say that the office of Lord Mayor predates capitalism. It is worth preserving, but it should be preserved in the context of a directly elected Lord Mayor of London.
    At about midnight on 31 March 1986 I performed my last duty as the last chairman of the Greater London Council. It predated my removal of all the silver from County Hall and it was the lowering of the GLC standard.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The flag got stuck.
    Mr. Banks: Of course it got stuck. Fate did not want to see it lowered; it wanted to preserve the GLC.
    320
    The flag was lowered to the strains of Nimrod, from Elgar's Enigma Variations. It was a moving occasion at which I said:
    "Tonight is an occasion for happiness tinged with only a little sadness. We are celebrating 97 years of service to London and doing it in a way only the GLC could organise—with music, with colour and with friendship. In that spirit I ask you to salute the Greater London Council and look forward with me in total confidence to its early return."
    I look forward to returning to county hall to see the flag raised again to celebrate the first meeting of the Greater London authority. I shall rejoice on that evening, and I suggest that the majority of Londoners will rejoice with me.
    6.10 pm
    Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, not as a transport expert but as a regular user of British rail and London underground and as a regular recipient of many letters of complaint about what purports to be a public service. For those reasons, I welcome all the more the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and his ministerial team to promote a more responsive and efficient transport system for London.
    The initiative comes at a time when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has advanced the pioneering concept of a citizens' charter. I was most interested to hear an apparent endorsement of that by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). Under that charter, the citizen will at last be able to seek some redress when a public service fails to live up to expected standards. In an increasingly consumer-oriented society, passengers, in common with patients and pupils, will no longer put up with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude.
    To improve the situation, two underlying problems must be tackled. They are finance and management. The current record level of public investment is essential, whatever the future structure of the respective systems. The increasing interest of the private sector in ancillary activities is to be welcomed, and I hope that the Government will continue to explore the radical possibilities of franchising rolling stock, track and even the staffing of parts of the system. The prospect of privatisation, even though it is not welcomed by the Opposition, concentrates minds wonderfully in the short term, and in the longer term privatisation will lead to much-needed private capital to provide the system that will be needed in the next century.
    In terms of management, it is difficult to avoid a litany of anecdotal evidence heard when passengers gather to swap horror stories. It is all very well to publish plans for reorganising Network SouthEast, but the only issue that matters is whether the passenger perceives that he is receiving a better service. In that context, I shall quote from some letters from the previous chairman of British Rail in response to my representations about constituents' problems.
    On reliability, I was told:
    "locomotives do not, sadly, have a very good performance record … maintenance had, regrettably, fallen into arrears due to an unusually high number of … trains operating elsewhere in Network SouthEast requiring tyre damage repairs following the autumn leaf fall."
    That explanation is reminiscent of one that I missed this year, when British Rail complained about the wrong type of snow.

    321
    On overcrowding, I was told that it was
    "not an uncommon practice throughout Network SouthEast for some passengers electing to stand for the whole journey, rather than wait for a later service on which they could travel in comfort."
    Those letters are as disturbing in tone as they are in content. On top of those complacent platitudes, customers have to tolerate price increases and deplorable standards of cleanliness and comfort. A problem of attitude pervades the whole management system, and unless it is firmly tackled, there is no hope at all of the culture changing. I shall give some other examples.
    In December 1990, the director SouthWest wrote an unsolicited letter to me and other hon. Members with constituency interests reminding us that the current timetable would expire in May 1991. Subsequent events showed that he was hoist by his own petard.
    After a few months overseas in a military capacity in which such incompetence would not be tolerated, I arrived at Waterloo to catch a specific train and was told that it had been cancelled, not just for that day but for the duration of the very timetable that had been publicised and sent to me. On the same day I was unable to find a member of the platform staff who could explain from the same timetable how trains apparently left Clapham junction before they had arrived from Waterloo.
    The next matter is a master stroke. The open-ended return ticket, vital for people with an irregular pattern of train travel, was removed. I asked BR to explain and it said in a letter—if I can find it—
    Mr. Tony Banks: I nodded off there.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I shall try to awaken the hon. Gentleman.
    British Rail said:
    "Network SouthEast loses an estimated £30 million through fraud and ticketless travel every year … a major chink in our armour in the past is the misuse of return tickets valid for more than one day. A ticket that is not stamped or collected could be repeatedly used, resulting in significant revenue losses."
    It beggars belief that the genuine needs of consumers can so readily be brushed aside. Surely the right question for British Rail to ask was how it could spend £30 million on sophisticated electronic equipment to ensure that it can move towards the elimination of fraud. Hon. Members may think that those are petty examples, but added together, they represent a deep malaise in the transport system.
    The Northern line is often referred to as the most embarrassing part of the London underground or, more colloquially, as the misery line. That line has its depot and two stations in my constituency. I await the report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and I hope that the Minister can give us some encouragement about a major and long overdue upgrading of that line. My beleaguered constituents are desperate for some good news.
    The Opposition make great play of their concern for public transport, and in that context I have an anecdote which I am sure the hon. Member for Newham, South-West (Mr. Banks) will appreciate. In November, the Northern line celebrated its centenary, and there was much to look back on with pride. It is the oldest electric tube system in the world and had the longest tunnel of its type
    322
    until the channel tunnel was built. More importantly, that celebration was an opportunity for hon. Members interested in the welfare of their constituents to meet the Northern line managers to discuss the problems of demand exceeding supply, of crime on trains and platforms, and on the issue of safety which rightly concerns the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
    What was the response of the local Labour party, flushed with success at winning control of Merton council for the first time? It boycotted the entire proceedings. That is typical of Labour's posturings and its total lack of practical and positive measures.
    A familiar expression of the late Airey Neave was: "There's work to be done." I have enormous faith in the ability of my hon. Friend and his colleagues to tackle the problems of public transport, both British Rail and London Underground, by applying the necessary impetus in all meanings of that word.
    6.19 pm
    Ms. Diane Abbott: Like the Minister, I am a Londoner. I was born in London, I went to school in London, I was a London councillor, and now I am proud to be a London Member of Parliament. It has been noticeable in the debate how Conservative Members, with the single exception of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), have missed the point. None has talked about the strategic issue. Instead, we have had the same old anecdotes about Labour councils and Labour looniness.
    No one pretends that London Labour councils do not have their problems and management difficulties. In Hackney, we have just uncovered a serious housing scandal. I take the opportunity this afternoon to congratulate the new director of housing in Hackney, Bernard Crofton, who has worked hard with a new team to uncover the scandal and turn the situation round. All of us in Hackney concerned with the issue are giving him every support.
    I have served as a London Labour Member of Parliament, but I have also served on a Tory-led council. Corruption and mismanagement are not the exclusive preserve of London Labour councils. Despite all that London Labour councils may have done, none has sunk so low as Westminster city council under Lady Shirley Porter, who sold cemeteries for 5p a time. Anyone who wants to hear what people think of Tory councils, their values, morals and commitments, should talk to the relatives of those buried in those cemeteries and saw them peddled to property dealers and overrun by weeds in the pursuit of market values and enterprise. That is what Tory local government amounts to—peddling the dead.
    Conservative Members and the Minister have talked about the attractions of London for business, particularly American business. It is true that American businesses wish to come here rather than go to Brussels or Frankfurt, and the main reason for that is language. No Labour Member argues that London is not still an attractive place to live for the rich. The question is what sort of a place London is becoming for the poor and those on middle incomes.
    I have lived in London all my life, and I think that one of London's strengths compared with cities such as New York and Washington is that London has always had a

    323
    high degree of social and racial integration. In New York and Washington, the rich and the white community live in fear behind stockades. Even today, after 12 years of Tory Government, even after the disturbances that we saw at the beginning of the decade, London is still a remarkably integrated city, where people of all colours and creeds can live side by side.
    London Labour authorities, with all their faults, did much during the 1980s to hold London together; to make it a city in which people can walk up and down through many communities in a way which cannot be done in New York or Washington. Whatever people may say about the Labour party in London, inasmuch as we helped to hold London together as an integrated city, we did a service to London. One can see what could have happened to London if one crosses the Atlantic and visits New York and other American cities which are divided by class and race; cities where people cannot leave their neighbourhoods without being in fear of their lives. That is the truth.
    That is an issue which Conservative Members do not wish to address. London Conservative Members in their entirety speak from their suburban fastnesses; they speak ridden by suburban bigotry. But the pride and strength of London has always been that it is a city to which people can come from all over the country and from all over the world and in which they can live, work and go to school together, in the knowledge that their children and grandchildren can go as far as they want to go. That is the strength of London. London is a melting pot, and that is something to which the Labour party is committed, as the Conservative party has never been. Conservative Members speak for the suburbs, for bigotry and for people who do not understand what has made London for centuries a magnet for people throughout the world.
    Mr. John Bowis: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms. Abbott: No; others wish to speak, and I want to complete my few remarks.
    When we talk about what London Labour-controlled authorities may have done wrong, we should also bear in mind what they did right. They have helped to keep London an integrated city, a city which, despite all its problems, is remarkable for the way in which people can live side by side.
    Conservative Members can repeat their central office list of loony grants until they are blue in the face, but it is always the same list; they never produce new examples. But anyone who lives and works in London will talk about the sad decline of London during the past 12 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said, cab drivers are not natural Labour voters, but they are the first to say how they regret the lack of investment in London's transport, which has led to London's roads seizing up.
    Nobody who knows London and who uses London transport—unlike Conservative Members can have failed to notice how London has declined into a shabbier, seedier and sadder place in the past decade. As a proud Londoner, I think that that is very sad indeed. No central office propaganda, no sneers at the London Labour party, can deny the evidence of people's own eyes. Under a Conservative Government, London has suffered from systematic neglect.
    Mr. Bowis: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms. Abbott: I must complete my remarks, because the Front-Bench spokesmen wish to speak.
    It is easy—it is not a temptation which Conservative Members find easy to resist—to sneer at what London local authorities may have done wrong in the past. But I want to take this opportunity to talk about what they have done right in the past. I think it was the Minister who asked what anybody who came into the debate this afternoon might think. Anyone who came into the debate this afternoon and looked at London Conservative Members would see that, without exception, they are middle-aged, grey-faced and grey-suited men. London Labour Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—three quarters of London Labour Members were here at the beginning of the debate—represent London in all its variety.
    The London Labour party may have its faults, but that is because London has its faults. The London Labour party may be a difficult and turbulent party, but since mediaeval times, London has been a difficult and turbulent city. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Edmonton may laugh, but we were at school together. I am a grammar school girl made good and he is a grammar school boy gone to the bad—
    Mr. Portillo: That is a gross calumny on my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn). I represent Enfield.
    Ms. Abbott: But we are both in a funny way an example of what can happen to the children of people who come to London from far away.
    In this debate, I have risen to be a voice from beyond the suburbs, beyond people carping about their rates, beyond people complaining about these blacks and these women, and to talk for the spirit of London. Since mediaeval times, it has been a dangerous, dirty and difficult city, but, above all, it has been a city of contrasts; a city to which people come from all over the world to live side by side.
    If there is one crime that Conservative Members have committed, it is not their sad neglect of the city or the public sector, but the fact that they insist on speaking up for parochialism and for the inward-looking. They have never caught the spirit of this great city. For all its faults, the London Labour party has always done that. That is why any strategic authority will have a Labour majority. That is why the London Labour party still, in its variety and with its energy, speaks for London, and we will speak for London still.
    6.29 pm
    Mr. Frank Dobson: I am glad to have been in the Chamber for the past 10 minutes to listen to the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott). She is a black woman who was born in London and can speak movingly about our capital city. I loathed the patronising interruptions and mockery of Conservative Members during her speech.
    Apart from that behaviour, this has been a good debate, but, as people say about football matches, it has been a debate of two halves. Opposition Members have made thoughtful contributions, but, with the significant exception of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson)—who has left the Chamber in case I embarrass

    325
    him—there have not been many thoughtful contributions from the Conservative Benches. They have consisted of the usual old rigmarole of slagging off the Labour party in London.
    In his opening speech, the Minister seemed like Dr. Pangloss himself. "All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds" was his message. The only cloud on the horizon in London was the London Labour party, which was causing all the trouble. The Government claim that what the Labour party is saying in the motion could damage London's image abroad. All that we are doing is telling the truth about what is happening in London. Nothing could do more harm to London than a recitation of the facts. No words of mine could compare with the bad impression that foreign visitors may get when they come here occasionally, or the bad impression that Londoners get every day from the evidence of their own eyes: the unswept streets and the uncollected rubbish. [HON. MEMBERS: "In Labour authorities."] It is not Labour authorities.
    Mr. Portillo: Westminster is fine.
    Mr. Dobson: I invite the Minister to walk from my constituency in Camden into the neighbouring part of Westminster—provided that the council has not been warned in advance so that it can fix it—and tell me, judging by the state of the streets, which borough he is in. Most of the time he would not be able to tell the difference. It is not the fault of Labour councils that countless homeless people are huddled in shop doorways and public parks. It is not the fault of Labour councils that beggars collect outside the British museum and Buckingham palace. It is not the fault of Labour councils that sick people have to queue for health care in hospital out-patient departments.
    When the Labour party speaks out on these matters, it is giving voice to the views of Londoners. We must say it, because the London Tories dare not tell the truth. They apparently will not accept the evidence of their eyes and ears. They will not speak up for London. Most Londoners want to live in this great city. They are proud to be Londoners. Most of them were born and grew up here. Moved here because they wanted to do so. There are attractions to living in a big city. The buzz and bustle, the excitement and, to some extent, the danger of big-city living attract people. Most people in London want to stay, or would want to provided that they were guaranteed a better quality of life.
    The demands of Londoners are not outrageous. They want a decent home that they can afford; they want to feel safe when they walk the streets at night, and to sleep safe in their beds. They want good-quality health care for themselves and their families. They want good schools for their children. They want secure jobs with decent pay. They want to travel in clean, cheap, punctual transport. Nearly 50 per cent. of Londoners say that they would like to leave London, not because they are tired of London, but because they are tired of the circumstances in which they are expected to live and because basic services are not available.
    In this great city last year, 37,000 of our fellow citizens were officially accepted as homeless.
    Mr. John Bowis rose—
    Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way, because I do not have time.
    In London, 17,000 owner-occupiers had their houses repossessed because they could not afford to make their mortgage repayments. Tonight, 33,000 of our fellow citizens are living in bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation. If Conservative Members want to carry the country with them when they talk about improving people's health, they will have to improve the health of the people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
    In a report about my constituency, doctors mildly say:
    "It is difficult to maintain hygiene while washing, eating and sleeping in one overcrowded room."
    Indeed it is. They talk of high levels of gastroenteritis, skin disorders and chest infections. They say that the rates of accidents involving children are high, owing to the combination of a lack of space and hazards, such as kettles, on the floor of the room. The report is not about a third-world city such as Calcutta. It is about London now, and the circumstances in which our fellow citizens are expected to live.
    Last year, in this city of 7 million people, only 363 council houses were started. None of them was in Camden, Islington, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham or Lambeth. Wandsworth—the Tories' favourite place—went literally one better: it started one council house. In 1978, the year before the Government took office, 13,000 council houses were started for people who needed homes. That means that last year only one council house was started for every 36 that were started in 1978.
    One reason for that is the cost of land, which is high because it has been driven up by property speculation. Property speculators are driving out our local communities. To convince Conservative Members, I can do no better than to quote what Winston Churchill said in 1910 about property speculators—it was right then, and it is right now:
    "The profits of property speculators rise in direct proportion to the damage they do to the rest of the community."
    They make their money by pushing up rents. They drive up industrial and commercial rents and company costs.
    One of the reasons for rising unemployment in London is that companies cannot afford to pay the rents that property speculators demand. Companies close or leave London, and jobs are lost. Since the Government took office, 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in London. People tend to forget that London used to be the major manufacturing city in Britain. Banks and insurance companies should remember that when they decide on their investment policies. They achieved quicker and cheaper returns by investing in property speculation than by investing in industrial or commercial activity. They have done a vast amount of damage.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, in the past year the number of people unemployed in London has soared from 201,000 to 309,000—even according to the Government's doctored figures. There are 26 out-of-work people for every vacancy. Some of the jobs have been lost in the health service. When the Government took office, there were 140,000 people working full time in the health service in London. The figure is now down to 120,000.
    When the number of jobs was decreasing, the Government said that it would not affect patients, but it

    327
    has. During that period, the hospital waiting lists have increased by a third. Now, more than 134,000 Londoners are waiting for hospital treatment. If it was not staff cuts that led to those waiting lists, it must have been the bed cuts. The number of acute hospital beds has gone down by a third, from 31,000 to 21,000. Fewer staff, fewer beds, longer waiting lists: it is a simple matter.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has been so effective in exposing the shortcomings of the Government's transport policies that they have made a U-turn—or, at least, they are trying to convince people that they have. We have heard about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, and the good old Evening Standard—not usually a Labour paper—says:
    "Tube fares set for huge rises".
    That is because the Government will not provide the money to invest in London Regional Transport.
    In their amendment, all that the Government can say about transport is that the transport system is
    "as extensive as any in Europe".
    So what? It always was. With equal accuracy they could have said that it is the most expensive, most unreliable, slowest and dirtiest in Europe. The people of London know that, even if Conservative Members deny it.
    It is not a Labour party myth that people in London are concerned about the education that their children are receiving. Apart from the many mad testing schemes that take up teachers' time—and even the Tories seem to be abandoning them—the Tories are saying that the answer is to go back to basics. I agree with that. There are many basics we need but do not have at present. We need a qualified teacher for every class. That is pretty basic. We need a textbook for every child, a classroom that does not let in the rain, and a nutritious school dinner for every child that needs one. Those are pretty basic needs, too. Incidentally, I remind Conservative Members that, when the present Prime Minister was a Minister at the Department of Social Security, he deprived 35,000 of the poorest children in London of the right to a free school meal. We need one other basic change. We want a Cabinet with members who send their children to the schools that they say are good enough for the children of their constituents.
    The Tories keep moaning about crime and, with good reason, crime concerns the people of London. In the 1974 election the present Prime Minister stood in St. Pancras, North, which is now part of my constituency. At that time, he said that the figure for violent crime was too high. Since then it has doubled, and doubled again. There are four violent crimes now for every one in 1974, when he said that there were too many. Since the Government took office, the number of sexual offences in London has doubled, robbery has trebled and criminal damage has trebled. I have been checking and it appears that the only contribution that the Prime Minister made to solving that problem when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and then Chancellor of the Exchequer was to refuse to find the funds that the Metropolitan police thought were necessary to combat rising crime in London.
    The problems for London in the future are enormous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) said so movingly, London is a troublesome place. It has always been a troublesome place. It is crowded and difficult. There are no instant solutions to the problems, and the Labour party does not
    328
    offer instant solutions to intractable problems. It is nothing to do with money, but, unlike the Government, who perform a stunt every Tuesday and Thursday and have to go back on the stunt the following Tuesday and Thursday, we believe that it is better to think out the answers to problems before suggesting them.
    We believe that there are three ways forward for the future of London. The Labour party has national policies with practical answers to practical problems on jobs, training, policing, housing, education, health, transport and crime. We know in advance that they will not all work; nobody's policies have all worked. However, we have to try to work our way through and improve the quality of life in London.
    We have learnt lessons, including some from the performance of London Labour councils. We accept some responsibility for what has been going on. We have learnt that it is no good for the Government to say, "This is going to happen, this is a change in the law and here is the money," and then think that the service has automatically been delivered. We know from experience that that is not so. That is why we are proposing a quality commission with powers to check the costing and quality of services provided by local government. In the light of the failure of the social services inspectorate in Staffordshire, this Government, above all, should remember that we want top quality inspectorates looking at all the services.
    The issue that has received most attention, at least from Opposition Members, is that we believe that there should be an elected strategic authority for London. Most of the work will always have to be done by the lower tier authorities. The GLC used to perform some of the duties that would be better done by the lower tiers, and that is why I always believed that it should be substantially changed. There are Londonwide problems requiring a Londonwide perspective from an elected body. Some jobs simply cannot be done by 32 or more boroughs. Planning, transport and other strategic issues need to be dealt with by a Londonwide authority.
    What we want, and what Londoners have made clear in every poll about London that they want, is an elected voice for London. They want government of the people of London, by the people of London, for the people of London. That is what the people of Birmingham, Glasgow and Sheffield get. They elect councils with civic pride to do something about their great cities. That is what we are promising the people of London. We know that they want it, and the Tories are scared stiff of those alternatives.
    6.45 pm
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I apologise to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for missing his opening speech. I shall read the record. However, I have been able to listen to the excellent contributions from my hon. Friends and from other hon. Members.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (M r. Dobson) talked about homelessness. I agree that it is a disgrace that people should wish to sleep and have to sleep in the streets of the capital. Members on both sides of the House share that view. That is why the Department of the Environment has initiated a major programme of £180 million over two years. It is also why, over the past two years, the Department of Health has instituted a major programme of housing, both temporary and permanent,

    329
    for the mentally ill—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may barrack me, but I am trying to make a serious point with which both sides of the House would agree.
    Several points were raised on the structure of government in London. There were powerful speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton), for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes). They all spoke out strongly for London. Although I intend to address most of my remarks to transport, I shall ensure that their remarks are conveyed to my colleagues at the Department of the Environment.
    The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) is in her place. In a recent interview as a shadow transport Minister she perhaps let the cat out of the bag. She was asked whether the new authority for London could be a taxing authority. Quite fairly and frankly, she admitted that it could be.
    Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the Minister tell my constituents, whose homes and lives are blighted by the shambles over the channel tunnel rail link, when he will decide on the options for that link and whether he will rule out an overland route through south London that would blight for ever an inner city area that is hoping to regenerate? When will he put the people of Peckham out of their misery and decide on an alternative route?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady did not deal with my point that the new authority could be a taxing authority. That is the implication. However, the Government have just received from British Rail its preferred routes and will come to a decision as quickly as possible. We will then publish the preferred route and all the detailed justifications for the selection. If elected to office, the Labour party proposes to take six months to come to a decision. We are committed to reaching a decision as quickly and sensibly as possible.
    Ms. Joan Ruddock: The Minister said that I gave an honest answer that such an authority could be a taxing authority. He knows perfectly well that in the Labour party's published document it does not state that it will be a taxing authority. It will take over the precepts that are currently given to the quangos that the Government were forced to set up when they removed the GLC. It is unfair of the Minister to suggest that I have made any mistake or that my comments differ in any way from the views of my party.
    Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Lady does not differ from her party in any way, which is why we note her comments as shadow transport Minister about the taxing implications of the new body.
    As the Minister for Public Transport, I emphasise that we all agree—including the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—that for London the transport infrastructure is vital. We want a modern, clean, reliable and safe infrastructure for the underground, for the buses, for Network SouthEast—
    Mr. Gould: Is this how it is to be done?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Dagenham waves the Evening Standard. Let me disabuse him: there is absolutely no truth in the Evening Standard's article, so if I were him, I should fold it up and put it down.
    The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report was published today, after six months, detailed study of the underground. We welcome the report, as it is well written and serious. It reflects the fact that the Victorian and Edwardian structure of the railway has needed, and still needs, substantial maintenance. Demand on London Underground has risen dramatically in the previous five or six years, as my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies know. Demand has increased by 50 per cent., so extra capacity is needed.
    The Government have approved two new underground railway lines and are planning a third. We have a 15-year programme involving the Jubilee line, which will cost over £1 billion, the east-west crossrail and the safeguarding of the Chelsea-Hackney route. That is a creditable programme for the extension of the London underground, which will cost more than £3 billion. [Interruption.] Whereas we are planning to support a £3 billion investment programme for London Underground over the next three years—which is double the investment programme of the previous three years—the Opposition will be unable to improve on that programme, because the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury will not permit any revenue commitments. Their preference for revenue subsidy to reduce the fares on Network SouthEast and on the underground is a non-runner.
    As for the capital programme, the Opposition's suggestion is to borrow in the private capital markets. I can tell the shadow Transport Minister that London Underground will not be able to borrow in the private capital markets without a guarantee from Her Majesty's Government—it is not possible. That is part of public sector borrowing and they would end up paying more than the Government pay through the national loans fund. Such a proposal would not run.
    In his speech, which I am sorry that I missed, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said that a comparison of investment by the GLC in the London underground in 1984–85 of £165 million—that is at today's prices—with that for 1990–91 of £442 million showed an increase of two and a half times. However, he argued that the GLC would have liked to spend more but could not. The weakness in that argument—and I have the figures here—is that in the last three years of the GLC's existence, the revenue subsidy was £510 million, but capital investment was £394 million—only 45 per cent. of the total resources available went on investment.
    Mr. Livingstone rose—
    Mr. Freeman: Let me finish the point.
    In the past three years, when the Government have had direct control of London Underground, the figures have been reversed. There were £171 million of revenue subsidy and £843 million of investment: 85 per cent. of the resources went on investment. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
    Mr. Livingstone: Will the Minister confirm that the reason why the figures are different is that the GLC had complete control of the revenue figure to set as it wished, but the capital figure was subject to central Government control? It was negotiated between GLC officials and

    331
    Department of Transport officials, and it reflected the Government's priorities. Had the Government allowed us to spend what we wished, we would have built the Jubilee extension to the docklands out of revenue. It would now have been operating with not £1 of debt on public spending.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman's argument is bogus. The resources available to the GLC were part of the public sector. The Labour party made the deliberate decision to emphasise revenue subsidy, not investment. The Government have reversed that emphasis, much to the benefit of Londoners.
    I shall deal with buses and then with the railways before I conclude. The Conservative party is the party with positive ideas for the future of London buses. We favour the deregulation of London bus services and the privatisation of London Buses Ltd. The management of London Buses want the services to be privatised. We favour deregulation because we want more bus services provided in Greater London—services at different times of the day and of the week.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: That will not happen.
    Mr. Freeman: How does the hon. Gentleman know? If the services are deregulated, nobody will destroy the traditional red double-decker London buses. They will remain, but instead of London Regional Transport deciding centrally where the bus routes will run, we shall give the market a chance to decide—and that means the passengers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. Spearing rose—
    Mr. Freeman: I shall give way in a moment, but let me finish this point.
    We believe that by deregulating the market we shall increase the patronage of London buses and that, therefore, there will be less congestion on London's roads. The Conservative party has taken the initiative with the red routes. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said that that initiative had been so successful that traffic speeds were giving cause for concern. Our policies—not only the red routes and the improvement of Network SouthEast and of London roads, but the deregulation of bus services—are the best recipe for relieving congestion in Greater London.
    Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially as I was in a Select Committee for some of the debate. He challenged me when I made a sedentary intervention. Will he tell Londoners and the House how full deregulation, which is what the Government's paper recommends, is compatible with a service that provides buses early on a Sunday morning, for example, or at the end of routes which, at the moment, are funded from the surplus in the central area of a route? How will full deregulation under his proposals provide the scale of service that Londoners want?
    Mr. Freeman: In the same way that bus services in the provinces are provided where the social routes in the provinces are subsidised. My local county council subsidises bus routes, and that applies to the councils in the constituencies of all my hon. Friends. That will continue. The authority responsible for bus transportation in London will continue to sponsor socially necessary bus
    332
    routes and services. [Interruption.] I have already answered the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. Perhaps he did not hear the first time so, for the sake of clarity, I shall tell him again why the Evening Standard is wrong.
    We accept that substantial increases in investment in London underground are needed. We have provided for £3 billion of investment over the next three years, which is an increase of 100 per cent. There is no question of huge fare rises for the passengers of London Underground. That is neither acceptable nor appropriate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) mentioned Network SouthEast. I am grateful for his support of the principle of privatisation which the Government, when re-elected, will introduce in the next Parliament. Privatisation has three advantages. First, investment constraints are removed. In the private sector, British Rail would be able to borrow what it deemed sensible. The employees of British Rail—140,000 of them—will be able to own shares directly in British Rail. Indeed, their pay will be more directly related to their performance. Thirdly, where appropriate—it is not appropriate for Network SouthEast—I hope that there will be greater competition and therefore a greater improvement in the quality of services.
    There are key differences between the approaches of the Opposition and of the Government to transport planning in London. It needs to be properly co-ordinated. I am the Minister responsible for co-ordinating public transportation in London, and it is done well and satisfactorily. The main differences between the Labour party and the Government are, first, that the Labour party believes in centralised planning and centralised control while we believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) said, in a decentralised system of planning where the passenger, not a bureaucrat or a politician, makes the decision.
    Secondly, we do not believe in politicians deciding on new rail or underground lines. It is for the operators to make the decision and to bring it to the Government for funding. We have done that. Thirdly, the Labour party believes in revenue subsidy while we believe that investment is the key. Lastly, the Opposition can make no further commitment to provide funding to increase the expenditure to which the Government are committed. We have a major programme for London involving £4 billion over the next three years for Network SouthEast and London Underground. The Government will continue in office and bring the benefits of that programme to full fruit for Londoners.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
    The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 300.

    Division No. 156]

    [7.01 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Beckett, Margaret

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Allen, Graham

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

    Anderson, Donald

    Benton, Joseph

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Blair, Tony

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Boateng, Paul

    Ashton, Joe

    Boyes, Roland

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Bradley, Keith

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Barron, Kevin

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Battle, John

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    333

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Janner, Greville

    Buckley, George J.

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Caborn, Richard

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Callaghan, Jim

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Lamond, James

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Canavan, Dennis

    Leighton, Ron

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Lewis, Terry

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Clelland, David

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Cohen, Harry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    McAllion, John

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Corbett, Robin

    McKelvey, William

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    McLeish, Henry

    Cousins, Jim

    McMaster, Gordon

    Cox, Tom

    McNamara, Kevin

    Crowther, Stan

    Madden, Max

    Cryer, Bob

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Cummings, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Martlew, Eric

    Darling, Alistair

    Meacher, Michael

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Meale, Alan

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Michael, Alun

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

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Dewar, Donald

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Dixon, Don

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Dobson, Frank

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Doran, Frank

    Morley, Elliot

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Eadie, Alexander

    Murphy, Paul

    Eastham, Ken

    Nellist, Dave

    Edwards, Huw

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    O'Brien, William

    Fatchett, Derek

    O'Hara, Edward

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

    Patchett, Terry

    Fisher, Mark

    Pendry, Tom

    Flannery, Martin

    Pike, Peter L.

    Flynn, Paul

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Prescott, John

    Foster, Derek

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Foulkes, George

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Fraser, John

    Radice, Giles

    Fyfe, Maria

    Randall, Stuart

    Galloway, George

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Reid, Dr John

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Richardson, Jo

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Gordon, Mildred

    Rogers, Allan

    Gould, Bryan

    Rooker, Jeff

    Graham, Thomas

    Rooney, Terence

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Grocott, Bruce

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Hain, Peter

    Sheerman, Barry

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Haynes, Frank

    Short, Clare

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Skinner, Dennis

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Henderson, Doug

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

    Hinchliffe, David

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

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Soley, Clive

    Hood, Jimmy

    Spearing, Nigel

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Stott, Roger

    Hoyle, Doug

    Strang, Gavin

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Straw, Jack

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Illsley, Eric

    Turner, Dennis

    Ingram, Adam

    Vaz, Keith

    334

    Walley, Joan

    Worthington, Tony

    Warden, Gareth (Gowsr)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wilson, Brian

    Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

    Winnick, David

    Mr. Robert Wareing.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dover, Den

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Alton, David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Amos, Alan

    Dykes, Hugh

    Arbuthnot, James

    Eggar, Tim

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Ashby, David

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Evennett, David

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Atkins, Robert

    Fallon, Michael

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Favell, Tony

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Baldry, Tony

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forman, Nigel

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Beggs, Roy

    Forth, Eric

    Beith, A. J.

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Bendall, Vivian

    Franks, Cecil

    Benyon, W.

    Freeman, Roger

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    French, Douglas

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fry, Peter

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Gale, Roger

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bottomley, Peter

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Gill, Christopher

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Bowis, John

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Brazier, Julian

    Gorst, John

    Bright, Graham

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

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

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Grist, Ian

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Ground, Patrick

    Burns, Simon

    Grylls, Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Butler, Chris

    Hague, William

    Butterfill, John

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hannam, John

    Carr, Michael

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

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Harris, David

    Cash, William

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hayes, Jerry

    Chope, Christopher

    Hayward, Robert

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Conway, Derek

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hill, James

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Hind, Kenneth

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Couchman, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Cran, James

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

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Curry, David

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

    Howells, Geraint

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Day, Stephen

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Devlin, Tim

    Irvine, Michael

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Dicks, Terry

    Jack, Michael

    335

    Janman, Tim

    Price, Sir David

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Redwood, John

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Kennedy, Charles

    Riddick, Graham

    Key, Robert

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Rost, Peter

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Knapman, Roger

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Knox, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Latham, Michael

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Sims, Roger

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Livsey, Richard

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Speller, Tony

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    McCrindle, Sir Robert

    Squire, Robin

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Steen, Anthony

    Maclennan, Robert

    Stern, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Stevens, Lewis

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Madel, David

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Sumberg, David

    Maples, John

    Summerson, Hugo

    Marlow, Tony

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mills, Iain

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Tracey, Richard

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Tredinnick, David

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Trimble, David

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Trippier, David

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Trotter, Neville

    Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Moss, Malcolm

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Viggers, Peter

    Mudd, David

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Needham, Richard

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Wallace, James

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Watts, John

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Wells, Bowen

    Norris, Steve

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Whitney, Ray

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Page, Richard

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Paice, James

    Wilkinson, John

    Patnick, Irvine

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wood, Timothy

    Pawsey, James

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Yeo, Tim

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Portillo, Michael

    Mr. David Lightbown, and

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 26.

    Division No. 157]

    [7.16 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Forth, Eric

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Amos, Alan

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Arbuthnot, James

    Franks, Cecil

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Freeman, Roger

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    French, Douglas

    Ashby, David

    Fry, Peter

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Gale, Roger

    Atkins, Robert

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Gill, Christopher

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Batiste, Spencer

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Bellingham, Henry

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Benyon, W.

    Gorst, John

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Boswell, Tim

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Bottomley, Peter

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Grist, Ian

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Ground, Patrick

    Bowis, John

    Grylls, Michael

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Hague, William

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Brazier, Julian

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bright, Graham

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

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

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Harris, David

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Burns, Simon

    Hayward, Robert

    Burt, Alistair

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Butler, Chris

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Butterfill, John

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hill, James

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hind, Kenneth

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Cash, William

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

    Chapman, Sydney

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Chope, Christopher

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Irvine, Michael

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Conway, Derek

    Jack, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Janman, Tim

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Couchman, James

    Key, Robert

    Cran, James

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Curry, David

    Kirkhope, Timothy

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

    Knapman, Roger

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Day, Stephen

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Dicks, Terry

    Knox, David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Dover, Den

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Dunn, Bob

    Latham, Michael

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Eggar, Tim

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Evennett, David

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Fallon, Michael

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Favell, Tony

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    337

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Riddick, Graham

    McCrindle, Sir Robert

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Rost, Peter

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Madel, David

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Malins, Humfrey

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Marlow, Tony

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Mills, Iain

    Shersby, Michael

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Sims, Roger

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Speller, Tony

    Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Squire, Robin

    Mudd, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Steen, Anthony

    Needham, Richard

    Stern, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stevens, Lewis

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Norris, Steve

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Paice, James

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Patnick, Irvine

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Pawsey, James

    Tracey, Richard

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Trippier, David

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Trotter, Neville

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Viggers, Peter

    Portillo, Michael

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Waller, Gary

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    338

    Watts, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wells, Bowen

    Wood, Timothy

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Whitney, Ray

    Yeo, Tim

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Mr. John M. Taylor.

    NOES

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Livsey, Richard

    Beggs, Roy

    Maclennan, Robert

    Beith, A. J.

    Madden, Max

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Martlew, Eric

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Salmond, Alex

    Carr, Michael

    Skinner, Dennis

    Cox, Tom

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Cryer, Bob

    Trimble, David

    Fearn, Ronald

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Howells, Geraint

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Mr. James Wallace and

    Kennedy, Charles

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

    Livingstone, Ken

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House deplores the habit of the Labour Party to run down London in a way which, if taken seriously, would damage its image abroad, deter foreign investors and bring glee to London's competitor cities overeas; emphasises that London is one of the world's finest cities with cultural and business attractions which have few rivals, a transport system as extensive as any in Europe and international hub airports which are the envy of others; welcomes the decision of the Government to relieve London of the unnecessary and highly wasteful Greater London Council; deplores Labour's plans to establish a still more wasteful London-wide body with powers to control the police which even the Greater London Council did not have; welcomes the Government's enmormous investment programme in public transport and in infrastructure in Docklands; and salutes the Government's achievements of the last 12 years which have raised Britain's reputation abroad and with it that of her capital city.

Training and the Unemployed
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.
7.28 pm
Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government for the recession which is affecting every part of Britain and every sector of industry, with serious long-term consequences for Britain's future; notes with dismay that at a time of rising unemployment, the Government is cutting support for the unemployed; and calls upon it to reverse the cuts in training provision and provide additional employment measures for the unemployed without delay.
Our case tonight is clear: this recession is the avoidable recession, the consequence not of events outside Government control but of errors of economic incompetence. It is now cruelly affecting the lives of millions of our citizens, and without urgent Government action—first, on interest rates, secondly, on training and, thirdly, on help for the unemployed—there will be lasting and long-term damage to the future of this country.
In the past six months alone—the first six months of the Prime Minister's premiership—almost 500,000 people have been added to the dole queue. Ministers used to say that unemployment was not rising in the north, in Scotland, in the midlands and in Wales—just in the south. Last month shattered that illusion, when unemployment rose most sharply in the midlands, and the north and Scotland suffered their worst rise of the recession.
They used to clutch at the straw that unemployment was at least still below the European Community average. Now, according to the OECD, it is above it, and according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research last week, by the end of 1991 only Spain, Ireland and what was East Germany will have higher unemployment rates than Britain.
This week Cambridge Econometrics and the London Business School forecast that unemployment will not only rise throughout the rest of this year but will continue to rise in 1992. Those bodies say that unemployment may rise to almost 3 million. Is any Minister prepared to contradict them?
Ministers used to take comfort from the idea that the recession was service-based, affecting white collar professionals. Now we know that even that was a false hope. Manufacturing output this year will fall by about 6 per cent., and investment by 10 per cent. According to the evidence given by the Confederation of British Industry to the Select Committee on Employment, about 90,000 to 100,000 manufacturing jobs have gone in the first few months of this year alone. Our analysis of vacancies at job centres shows engineering vacancies falling by 60 per cent. and technicians' vacancies by 70 per cent.
Worse still, it is clear that, over the period 1979 to 1991, we start from a lower base than other countries. By the end of 1991, manufacturing will have grown more slowly than in any other OECD country. It has risen by 62 per cent. in Japan, by 37 per cent. in the United States, by 27 per cent. in Germany but by only 6 per cent. in Britain. Manufacturing investment will have grown more slowly in Britain than in any other country except Greece.
The true distinctive feature of the recession is not that it is a sudden, service-based, white-collar recession, but
340
that it is now affecting north and south, services and manufacturing, white-collar and manual jobs. No region, no sector, no occupation is now immune.
Let us be clear that, however the recession began, the reality today is that the companies going to the wall, the employees being made redundant, are those that took the tough decisions in the early 1980s, and reformed and changed as Ministers urged them to. These are the casualties not of wrong decisions taken by lazy managers or obstinate employees but of wrong decisions taken by Ministers, and it is Ministers who should now shoulder the responsibility.
In this recession, we are losing companies that we cannot afford to lose and skills that we desperately need to keep. Our concern lies not just in the present fears of the hundreds of thousands of people not under the threat of unemployment, and not just in the present difficulties of industry and home owners suffering under high interest rates. Our concern is that, without action now, we shall lose, and lose permanently, capacity and skills that we require to compete successfully in the future.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is talking with great sincerity about unemployment. Has he had a chance to study the pamphlet produced by the Fabian Society, which shows that a national minimum wage policy would cost about 800,000 jobs? Does he agree with that estimate, and even if he does not, does he support his party's policy to introduce a national minimum wage?
Mr. Blair: I support that policy absolutely. The hon. Gentleman has been badly briefed by his researchers. The Fabian pamphlet that Ministers cite against a minimum wage was actually written in support of it. The job estimates are absolute nonsense. We know, as does the rest of the country, that Conservative Members are raising the issue only because they dare not talk about the unemployment that they are creating, day in and day out.
The other day, in an interview on "Frost on Sunday" on TV-am, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the Government's response to the recession:
"These are just vague stirrings at the moment, but the signs arc there … I know that when one talks to business men —I talk to business men all the time, and listen very carefully to what they're saying—lots of them say, 'We can't see it', but of course, they can't sec round the corner. That is what the economist has to do, what the Treasury has to do, and what we have seen"
David Frost then asked the Chancellor:
"But the vague stirring? You're saying you've seen vague stirring?"
The Chancellor replied:
"Faint stirrings, yes."
Given three years of high interest rates and the number of small businesses going bankrupt—bankruptcy rates went up by 97 per cent. in the south this year, by 115 per cent. in the midlands, by 159 per cent. in Wales and by 261 per cent. in East Anglia—"faint stirrings" are a pretty poor record for any Government after 12 years.
Ministers told us that there would be no recession when there was a recession; they told us that it would be shallow when it was deep. Now, when the evidence of their own incompetence is piled deep around them, and when we have the worst recession in the western world, they still try to pretend that the problem does not exist, because they do not have a clue how to solve it.
Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not understand that, as he and his colleagues looked round the corner—as

341
he puts it—two years ago and told people that there was an economic miracle, and as people and businesses planned, borrowed and organised on that basis, those people and businesses are now entitled to experience feelings of betrayal, because, instead of a miracle, they have got a recession? Does the Secretary of State for Employment not understand the feelings of the unemployed, and their anger, not only about the fact of unemployment but about the fact that, at a time of fast rising unemployment—we have the fastest rising unemployment anywhere in the western world—the Government are cutting the budget for training the unemployed?
When unemployment was last at 2 million, in December 1988, the budget for special employment measures was £1–5billion in real terms. Today it is £800 million. Then, unemployment was falling; now, it is rising. Are not the training and enterprise councils, which have been landed with the responsibility for training the unemployed without the power or funds to do it properly, entitled to experience a sense of betrayal as well?
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman in the full flight of his rhetoric and return him to reality? How does he explain the fact that the amount spent on training in real terms—not in cash terms —is two and a half times higher than it was in 1979? That is a fact, and he cannot deny it. In the midst of all his waffle and rhetoric, he might compare the Government's record with that of their Labour predecessors.
Mr. Blair: As the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about reality, are we not entitled to point to the reality of what is happening to training and enterprise councils? The hon. Gentleman does not need to take our word for it—
Mr. Nicholls rose—
Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman asked about the reality of TECs—
Mr. Nicholls rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I asked about the reality of training and enterprise councils.—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am quite prepared to listen to the hon. Gentleman's point of order when the House will allow me to hear it, as it must.
Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is rather at fault. He said that I had asked him about TECs. Should he not have another chance to answer the question that I put to him? He said that training was underfunded, yet we are spending two and a half times as much as was spent when the Labour party was in office. That is the question that he should answer.
Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman's case—
Mr. Nicholls: Just answer it.
Mr. Blair: If the hon. Gentleman disputes that TECs are underfunded, he does not have to take my word for it but the word of the TECs themselves. One thing that one
342
can say about the Government's case is that at least they have been clear, if not brazen, over the past six months. We have raised the question of the underfunding of training and the cuts in the training of the unemployed—
Mr. Nicholls: But you oppose TECs.
Mr. Blair: For six months, the Government have consistently denied that there is any such underfunding—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) listened, he might learn something. For six months—
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. That is not the way in which we conduct ourselves. Doubtless other hon. Members will seek the opportunity to make alternative arguments.
Mr. Blair: If the hon. Gentleman were to read the Government's proposals on preventive health care, he might find something that would help him.
Let us return to the training and enterprise councils and the cuts that have been made, and consider what the Government have been saying in the past few months. Many hon. Members of all parties will remember that, when the Opposition have raised the issue of cuts in training, the Government have consistently denied that any such cuts are being made. On 26 February, the Secretary of State said that Opposition complaints about funding were entirely unjustified. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment has said that the TECs are contracted to deliver the guarantee, funded accordingly, and will deliver the guarantee. The Secretary of State has also said that he has put in place the widest and most comprehensive range of assistance to help the unemployed. That is what the Government have been saying, but we are now able—
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Blair: No, I should like to finish my point.
We have conducted the first nationwide survey of training and enterprise councils and the problems that they have discovered, and we now have the evidence to put before the Government. This comes not from the Opposition, but from the training and enterprise councils which the Government themselves established. The 40 or so training and enterprise councils that replied to the survey report an average cut in training places of 25 per cent. That means that, in those TECs alone, 20,000 training places have been cut, and that 300,000 training weeks have been lost.
However, worse and more significant than anything else, is the reason that has been given. It is not the case, as the Government have said, that those TECs are merely switching training providers and reallocating contracts to different people. They have not said that there is any lack of demand for training places. Indeed, they have not said any of the things that the Government have been saying. The evidence has been clear. The north Nottinghamshire training and enterprise council has stated:
"there could be some difficulty in meeting the guarantee in North Notts given current funding levels for both ourselves and Employment Service."

343
The Kent training and enterprise council, which covers the Secretary of State's constituency, has stated:
"The provision for ET this year is 30 per cent. less than 1990/1991. The budget amounts to £5·338 million but as we have carried over a large number of trainees into this financial year, our training providers are having to reduce numbers at a time when demand is increasing."
The Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council has stated:
"Out of a total of 12 local (adult training) contracts, four have not been renewed. The rationale for these decisions is relatively simple, in that we have to strike a balance between the needs of the trainees; increasing the quality of training; and maintaining viable providers on a budget reduced in real terms by about 50 per cent."
That is what has been happening to the training and enterprise councils.
Mr. Oppenheim: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that, not very long ago, he stated in answer to an intervention from myself that a future Labour Government would increase spending on training as a matter of priority? Did the hon. Gentleman get the chance to listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) speaking on the "On the Record" programme on 19 May, when she clearly reiterated that a future Labour Government's only spending priorities would be pensions and child benefit? Who is right—the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Derby, South?
Mr. Blair: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Budget submissions that were produced by the Labour party in the run-up to the Budget, he will see that we showed exactly how the Government could have returned the training and enterprise councils to their previous funding level. The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense.
I should like to quote to him from a letter from the north Nottinghamshire training and enterprise council to one of its local training providers. The House should recall that the Government have consistently said that no training providers are going under as a result of Government cuts in funding, but this is what that TEC has said:
"As explained by both Steven and Pearl on recent visits, the overall Adult Training budget for the North Nottinghamshire TEC has been reduced by about 30 per cent. Although this is clearly a strange situation to be in at a time of rapidly rising unemployment, it is nonetheless the case … We realise that our decision has resulted in some unpleasant decisions … to make regarding your staff. I am sincerely sorry that they will be redundant. I wish there was something that I could do to prevent it, but I am afraid that our hands are tied."
That is what is actually happening.
Another minute has found its way into our posession. It is a letter from the Department of Employment to a training provider in London—to the Brixton Neighbourhood Community Association—[Laughter.]
Mr. Bob Cryer: What is funny about that? Why is the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) laughing?
Mr. Blair: I must advise the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) that that organisation was given approved organisation training status by the Government, so it is not very sensible for him to laugh.
The Department of Employment stated:
"After very careful consideration, I regret that we will not be seeking to renew our contract with you for the corning
344
year. As you are aware, funding levels have been drastically reduced and it has just not been possible to continue to fund the existing network of providers."
I repeat that that came from the Department of Employment.
Finally, a minute of a meeting on 2 May between the permanent secretary to the Department of Employment and the training and enterprise councils states:
"In both London and Sheffield the forecast for the period October 90 to October 91 was for a 50 per cent. rise in the levels of unemployment. Any arguments that the Treasury therefore had for a reduction in funding were now completely eroded and in fact there was a demonstrable justification for further funds."
In the light of those minutes and letters from the training and enterprise councils, and in view of everything that has been said, are we not entitled to an explanation from the Secretary of State? How does he justify at Employment questions, in debates, on radio and on television steadfastly denying that there is any problem with funding when there is now clear first-hand evidence of a funding reduction that is causing hardship and putting the Government's training guarantees at risk?
Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose—
Mr. Blair: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
There is not only a problem with the training and enterprise councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) recently raised the question of skill centres with the Secretary of State. He was told that he was making up nonsense about skill centres closing and about there being problems following their privatisation. Yesterday, however, my office received a letter from someone who used to be employed by the skill centres, which stated:
"Until last May, myself and hundreds of colleagues were civil servants employed by the Department of Employment and working in the Skill centres. I had worked in this field for 14 years and felt quite committed to retraining of the unemployed. I felt then, as I feel now, that training belongs in the public sector and responsibility for adult training and its funding should be taken by the Government.
However, the decision was taken that we should be privatised, and Astra Training Services was born … recently, due in the main to the poor funding of Employment Training and the inability of the private sector to play their part (due I am sure to financial problems) Astra is now making such a large loss that they are needing to shed more staff."
That is the reality of what is happening. Are we not at least entitled to an admission from the Government that that is what is happening?
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the following figures? Does he accept that there are now 350,000 Government training places and that, when the Government came to power in 1979, there were only 6,000? Does that increase record a cut or is it, as I think, a record of the Government's commitment and real belief in training and in putting enterprise behind it?
Mr. Blair: It is a fact that unemployment is now more than double what it was when the Government came to power. The hon. Gentleman must explain why the Government are cutting funding for training the unemployed when unemployment is rising.
Mr. Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend has referred to Sheffield, whose TECs have been in dialogue with the Secretary of State and his Ministers about the budget cut of 38 per cent. When the pit bull

345
terrier—the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who is constantly jumping up and down—was a Minister, representatives from the Sheffield TEC met him and tried to develop a proper partnership. A letter to the Minister from the Sheffield TEC says that the board of the TEC is not only frustrated because it cannot develop and deliver a quality service, but feels that it has been conned by the Government. That board consists of people from the private sector who spend two days a week trying to make training effective in a major manufacturing sector. They believe that they have been conned by the Government.
Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am aware that those concerns have been raised with the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will deal with them later.
Many of the TECs consist of people who came to them from business on the basis that they would have a genuine partnership with Government. They have found that their commitment to do more has become an excuse for the Government to do less. That is what is wrong.
What have the Government done recently for the unemployed? They have published what they call a five-point plan for the unemployed.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks on training, will he answer the specific question from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) about his position in relation to the clear statement made by the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), on "On the Record"? If he cannot persuade the shadow Chief Secretary that training should be an immediate spending priority, nothing he has said in the past 15 minutes has any substance whatever.
Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have listened to what I said. He completely misrepresented the words of the shadow Chief Secretary. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman read our Budget submissions, which we published months ago, he would see exactly how funding should be restored.
Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a transcript of exactly what the shadow Chief Secretary said in the "On the Record" interview on 19 May.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is a matter for debate; it is not a point of order.
Mr. Blair: I was discussing the Government's five-point plan, which was first launched in April last year, again in October, and then in November, December, February, March, April and May. The five-point plan has been launched eight times; it has been launched more often than the Liberal Democrats.
Let us analyse the plan which the Government boast is the most comprehensive package ever given to the unemployed. The plan offers
"In-depth advisory interviews for the newly unemployed … continuity at subsequent advisory interviews ….special advisory interviews … extra help to those long-term unemployed"—
I presume that that means more interviews—and
"intensive help with job-search"
346
Perhaps that is another interview. The idea that that amounts to the most comprehensive plan for the unemployed ever launched is risible.
Some Secretaries of State for Employment have tried to create jobs; some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessors have created schemes; but he has created interviews. He should be the Secretary of State not for Employment, but for interviews. If the local election results in his constituency are any guide to the general election, he may be the first Minister to create a plan for the unemployed and then to participate in it.
Faced with the highest level of unemployment in the western world, thousands of new redundancies each week, record bankruptcies, closures and cuts, what is the Government's response? They have cut training places and closed training programmes which has put their pledges at risk. Then, to add insult to injury, the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims that he is offering more to the unemployed, when on any rational basis he is offering less.
If we have any evidence of the uncaring face of Conservatism, surely this is it. The Government lack not just compassion, but common sense. What other country would cut its budget for training the year before 1992? Is not the worst aspect that we are cutting training when all the evidence points to it being the single most important element of our future success? Even if unemployment were falling—not rising—that policy would be foolish. When people are being made unemployed and need help to return to the labour market, and when we are at the bottom of the recession, should we not now retrain and reskill so that, when recovery comes, it will be our industries, companies and employees that take the advantage of it and not those of our competitors?
Yet what do the Government do? Nothing: they have not one new idea, fresh idea or new policy. They cannot even decide on the temporary work programme that we know has been under discussion since February, but that discussion is obviously well advanced. The occasional leak to the newspapers or radio tells us that it has not yet been ruled out, but four months from when that programme was first raised, there are another 250,000 people unemployed. What will it take to make the Government act? The answer, I am afraid, is fear of general election defeat: that is all.
At the moment, the Government do not sufficiently fear the consequences of unemployment. When the chairman of the Conservative party was interviewed on "Channel 4 News" after the local council elections, he was asked about unemployment. He said:
"The question is how much does it affect people's voting intentions, and, I don't think that there is very much evidence that it has all that much impact on people's voting intentions."
The Labour party's task from now until election day will be to prove him wrong, and we will.
When the pressure becomes too much, the headlines too bold, and the editorials too savage, when surrender becomes easier than resistance, the Government will do, what they were asked, as they did on the poll tax, the 16 to 19-year-olds training, transport, Europe and anything else. It will be too little, half-hearted and too late.—The Government are uncertain whether to make a virtue of listening or of standing firm. There will be a fit of indecision succeeded by a rash of misjudgments. That is not a healthy basis for government.

347
I understand that the Prime Minister has the first editions of the newspapers sent to him at 10 o'clock each evening. That is a revealing fact. Is not the difference between the present Prime Minister and the former one this: she used to read the newspapers the next morning to discover what she had done; he reads them the night before to discover what he should do?
We need action now on interest rates and we need the Government to stand up for the interests of small businesses. It is now that we need training cuts restored and special help for the unemployed. The tasks are too urgent and the needs too great to wait until the Government's indifference over unemployment is eventually replaced by their fear of the election result.
Two weeks ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the recession and unemployment were a price "well worth paying". It will be the Labour party's job to ensure that a price is paid by the Government—at the election.
7.58 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 add instead thereof:
'congratulates the Government on the success of policies which have created over a million new jobs since 1979; welcomes the introduction of the most comprehensive range of measures ever available to help the unemployed back to work; notes the very substantial increase in spending on training over the last 12 years; and, in particular, supports the measures in the recent White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century.'.
The speech we heard from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was full of his usual blend of indignation, disingenuousness and false promises, and was punctuated by a total failure to answer any of my hon. Friends' questions. It is beyond dispute that had, the hon. Gentleman's party been in office, it would have made unemployment immeasurably worse and its current policies, if they were ever implemented, would raise unemployment sharply. On training, it is beyond dispute that the Labour party would not have made the enormous progress which we have made since 1979 and that its policies would ensure that all the progress that we have made would be put rapidly into reverse.
Let me begin by setting out our achievements. This country has made more progress, more rapidly, on training and employment in the past 12 years than in any previous period in our history. There are over a million more jobs in Britain today than there have ever been under any Labour Government, and last year we recorded the highest number of jobs in our history. More of our work force are qualified now than ever before and more are taking part in training than ever before. Employers are more committed to training than ever before. More young people are entering work well qualified; more of the adult work force is qualified, and at higher levels; and more high-skill jobs are being created and filled. The Government have played their full part at every stage.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield made much of the increases in unemployment in the past 12 months. He has taken to issuing ever more excitable press releases in recent weeks about the levels of unemployment in Conservative-held marginal seats. Before he counts his chickens, he might care to check his facts. He has recently produced a list of 46 Conservative seats, where the numbers of registered unemployed exceed the size of our majority. He neglected to point out that, in 45 of those 46 seats,
348
unemployment is well below the levels prevailing when they were last fought at the general election. Indeed, unemployment in those 46 seats as a whole has fallen by more than 60,000, or over 25 per cent., since the last election, which is a bigger fall than the 23 per cent. fall in the country as a whole.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: My seat was one of those highlighted by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although the hon. Member for Sedgefield gloats over unemployment and rubs his hands with glee every time someone is made unemployed, we heard little from him in the days when so many new jobs were being created in my constituency in the west midlands? Where was he when the local Labour authority opposed employment training in Wolverhampton and turned down £700,000 from the Government? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he is a total sham and a lot of hot air?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She was also right to describe the hon. Gentleman as gloating. His speech was one long gloat about those figures.
In the most marginal Conservative seat in England, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), unemployment is more than a third below its June 1987 level. In the most marginal Conservative seat in Scotland, which is represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), unemployment is more than 36 per cent. below its level at that time. In the most marginal Conservative seat in Wales, which is represented by my hon. Friend, the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), unemployment is barely half the level it was when he was elected. Even in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Sedgefield, unemployment is more than 37 per cent. lower than it was at the time of the last election in June 1987.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister mentioned events north of the border. Does he recall that, when the vice-chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland came up with the idea for Scottish Enterprise, the training investment organisation, he said that its purpose was to eliminate unemployment in Scotland? When will that target be met?
Mr. Howard: It will be met and, in time, that is exactly what we shall achieve. We are pursuing policies that will bring down unemployment in Scotland to levels that have not been seen for many a day.
The way in which the hon. Member for Sedgefield has been using the unemployment statistics is another vivid example of the Labour party's approach to politics, which was described by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health in her memorable phrase as "scaring, not caring". That sums up the Labour party's approach. Its very purpose is to foment alarm and despondency. It is an approach of which it should be thoroughly ashamed.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present, will he give an undertaking that the Department will look carefully at the adult basic education units in Bathgate and throughout rate-capped Lothian region which are faced with closure? If those units are closed, how can people expect any kind of employment in the labour market? Will the Scottish Office give an undertaking to look at that serious matter?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present and has heard the hon. Gentleman's question. I am sure that he will look at that matter.
Mr. Dalyell: I want an undertaking.
Mr. Howard: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield is fond of alleging that we are complacent about rising unemployment, but that is wholly untrue. Nor are we negative and alarmist like the Labour party. Unlike Labour Members, we do not spend our time fostering fear but get on with the job of providing practical help to the unemployed. The Govenment are providing more practical help than has ever been available before to help unemployed people back to work. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there was little point in providing skilled assistance to the unemployed to help them find jobs. He thought that that subject was fit for mockery.
Every month, the employment service finds jobs for over 100,000 unemployed people. For the present financial year, I have set it a testing target—to find 1·3 million jobs for unemployed people, 5,000 jobs every working day.
More than half of those who become unemployed leave unemployment within three months. In recent months we have stepped up our efforts to help the unemployed to higher levels than ever before.
Mr. Blair: Will the Minister at least admit that funding for training the unemployed has been reduced as we said? How does he justify that at a time of rising unemployment?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows the position, which has been explained to him time after time. When we looked at the studies and surveys on those matters which were carried out last autumn, we decided that it was right to adjust the balance of help provided to the unemployed. That is why we increased provision through the employment service and increased the number of places in job clubs and through the job interview guarantee scheme. When we saw that unemployment was rising in February this year, I announced an extra £120 million for employment training, specifically to meet that changed situation.
Mr. Blair: Will the Secretary of State admit, plainly so that it will appear on the record, that he has cut funding for training the unemployed as was said?
Mr. Howard: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman exactly what we have done. I have told him that, unless and until he can persuade the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury to endorse his spending proposals, nothing that he says on this matter carries the slightest conviction.
Sir Norman Fowler: Would not the hon. Gentleman's point carry much more credibility, had the Labour party not campaigned against the introduction of employment training, which is the biggest training programme for long-term unemployed people, and, initially, against the training and enterprise councils?
Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend, who introduced employment training in the teeth of sustained opposition from the Labour party, is absolutely right. It lies ill in the mouth of the Labour party to criticise that programme.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Secretary of State realise that one of the main employers in my constituency is the Central Statistical Office, which collects Government statistics? It is so concerned about the constant manipulations and fiddles in Government statistics that the figures that we have been given today are meaningless and no comparisons are being made. Does the Secretary of State recall telling me a month ago that 700,000 people are counted twice in the employment statistics—he has said that again tonight—because they are doing more than one job?
Mr. Howard: If the Central Statistical Office lies in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he should know that the comparisons that we make are entirely consistent. If he has any doubts about that, I suggest that he asks his constituents who work in the Central Statistical Office because he will then see that that is entirely true.
Mr. Ron Leighton rose—
Mr. Howard: I shall give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee, but then I must get on.
Mr. Leighton: We are trying to get the facts straight on the funding for employment training. Does the Secretary of State agree that during the last autumn review the TEC chairmen asked that the funding for ET should remain the same, but that there was a cut of £365 million, of which the Secretary of State has restored £120 million—one third of the original cut? The TEC chairmen are asking for the other two thirds to be put back. Since then, unemployment has risen for 14 consecutive months and the Secretary of State has not put back a single penny piece. Are not those the facts?
Mr. Howard: Naturally, the TEC chairmen asked for more money then and I dare say that they will ask for more money again. Does the hon. Gentleman know of anyone who is in charge of a budget who does not want to see it made bigger and does not ask for more money? Of course, that is what the TEC chairmen want, but they have been told in the past and will be told again that they will have the resources they need to do the job that they have been set.
Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Howard: No, I cannot give way again. I must press on.
I want to tell the House—although I understand why the Labour party are reluctant to listen—about the ways in which we have been helping the unemployed. Job clubs are a highly successful means of helping unemployed people back to work. Some 64 per cent. of unemployed people leaving job clubs go straight into jobs, training or further education. There were no job clubs when the Labour party was in power. Such clubs were introduced by this Government. This year, we are providing an extra 100,000 places in job clubs and the new job interview guarantee scheme, which is a new project that we have piloted in inner cities. It brings together people without jobs and employers with vacancies. There was no such scheme when the Labour party was in power.
Restart interviews were scoffed at by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. They were the first systematic means to call in and offer help to the long-term unemployed and were introduced by this Government. There were no restart

351
interviews when the Labour party was in power. Now we are also offering restart courses—one-week job preparation courses.
The enterprise allowance scheme—the first ever national programme to help unemployed people become self-employed—was introduced by this Government. Already more than half a million new businesses have been founded by the EAS. Now that scheme is run by the training and enterprise councils, which have been given the flexibility to tailor it to meet the needs of different areas. There was no EAS when the Labour party was in power.
Employment training—the first ever national programme offering training to the long-term unemployed —was introduced by this Government when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was Secretary of State for Employment. There was nothing remotely like employment training when the Labour party was in power.
The employment service is now a next steps agency with much greater flexibility and efficiency so that it can offer help to the unemployed more effectively than ever. Yes it is true that it is now providing throughout the country a comprehensive five-point, job-help package to meet the specific needs of unemployed individuals. That includes in-depth advisory interviews for all newly unemployed people and an individual hack-to-work plan agreed with each one of them. There was nothing comparable when the Labour party was in power. The resources that have been made available to the employment service have been increased to ensure that it can provide that help effectively and efficiently. This year there will be about 650,000 opportunities, through my Department's programmes, to help unemployed people. No Government have ever done more than this one to help unemployed people back to work. We shall continue to spare no effort to ensure that we give them all the help that they need.
What would be the position on unemployment today if the Labour party was in power? We heard a good deal about economic mismanagement from the hon. Member for Sedgefield. With the benefit of hindsight, I would be the first to admit that interest rates were cut too far in the autumn of 1987 after the stock market crash. That unleashed the inflationary pressures which we are now getting back under control. It is absolutely clear that, if the Labour party had been in office in 1987 and 1988, the unemployment and recession we face today would be far worse. Throughout that autumn and winter, the Labour party called time and time again for still lower interest rates.
I am delighted to see that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is with us this evening. He was confronted with the evidence by Brian Walden on 17 March, who put his own statements back to him, and their effect on him was remarkable. He could not begin to conceal his discomfiture and was reduced to stuttering incoherence. He started grunting like an unhappy Japanese Sumo wrestler. He knew then and he knows now that the policies that he was then advocating would have made matters infinitely worse. The sum total of the Labour party's approach to economic policy is to call for lower interest rates in all circumstances and at all times, regardless of whether that would be the appropriate step to take. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy is the policy of the parrot—memorise a phrase and
352
repeat it mindlessly and endlessly in all places and at all times, regardless of whether it has the least relevance to the task in hand.
So much for the policies that the Labour party would have pursued if it had been in power during the past few years. What of the policies that it now proposes? What would be their effect on unemployment? The effect of the minimum wage policy on jobs would be devastating, and hon. Members do not have to take that from me. The Fabian Society pamphlet said:
"If the national legal minimum wage were a fixed proportion of median earnings, like half'—
that is only the first stage of Labour's policy—
"the restoration of differentials would have to be prevented, otherwise the proportion could not be held. If differentials were restored to any degree"—
as both the pamphlet and trade union leaders made it clear that they would be—
"median earnings would rise and that would necessitate a compensating increase in the national legal minimum wage, setting off more restorations of differentials. An automatic upward chase would have been set in motion with inflationary consequences."
The pamphlet went on to support estimates that up to 880,000 jobs would be destroyed.
The Fabian Society is not alone in saying that. The Financial Times, which the hon. Member for Sedgefield was so happy to call on for support during the Labour party's recent political broadcast, said in an editorial this week:
"Labour's minimum wage would raise unemployment among the unskilled, while doing little to relieve poverty. Moreover, it would reduce the incentive both for workers lo train and for employers to train them."
Joe Haines in the Daily Mirror described the minimum wage by saying that it
"won't work and won't help".
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that the unemployment consequences of the minimum wage would be "little short of disastrous."
Ms. Diane Abbott: There are thousands of women in my constituency who do dirty and degrading jobs for less money at the end of the week than the Secretary of State spends on dinner and who would be interested to hear Conservative Members sneering at the notion that they should earn a living wage. If a national minimum wage is so dreadful, why are we the only country in Europe without it?
Mr. Howard: That is not the case. As to the hon. Lady's constituents, of course they need to be helped. We do so sensibly through family credit, not by introducing a minimum wage which would destroy their jobs.
Even the Sunday People has said of Labour's minimum wage:
"it would only cause more unemployment and deny jobs to those who most need them".
The stupidity of the Labour party is that it confuses, low-paid jobs with low-income households, but 62 per cent. of those whose pay is in the lowest tenth of earnings are in the richer half of the population. That is why the sensible way of helping those on low incomes is to pay family credit, which is targeted on those in low-paid employment.[Interruption.] We do not flinch from ensuring that the taxpayer helps to look after people on low incomes who need help and it is news to me if the Opposition no longer subscribe to that proposition. We

353
believe that that is a more sensible way of achieving our objectives than is destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The commitment of the hon. Member for Sedgefield to policies that will destroy jobs would not stop with a minimum wage. He would introduce a new tax on jobs, costing up to 50,000 jobs. He would act immediately to introduce the European Commission's social action programme, which was denounced by every major employers' organisation in Britain because it would add £3·5 billion to their costs and destroy over 100,000 jobs.
What about Labour's strikers charter? What about the return of secondary action and the flying picket, the neutering of the ability of the courts to deal with unlawful action, the compulsion on employers to recognise trade unions, and the new guarantee that strikers cannot be dismissed? Is that how the Labour party intends to encourage jobs and the creation of the resources from which it says that it will pay for all its grandiose schemes?
On training, the Opposition would not have made any of the progress which we have made since 1979. Not only would they never have conceived of the range of training measures which we have introduced, but even when these measures were put on a plate right under their noses their reaction was to fight them tooth and nail. They opposed every training initiative from the start. They attacked YTS. Their leader, as shadow Education Secretary, toured the country in the early 1980s denouncing vocational education in general and our TVEI programme in particular as fit only for
"hewers of wood and drawers of water".
The Opposition opposed ET.
Unlike the Opposition, we have taken training seriously. We have increased spending on training two and a half times faster than inflation since 1979. We inherited 6,000 training places for young people from Labour and at present we have 350,000 Government-sponsored training places. That is 60 training places for every one which Labour was able to provide. More than 3 million young people have benefited from youth training and its predecessor since 1983.
We now have in place, with employment training, the biggest training programme for the long-term unemployed in Europe. That increased commitment has been fully matched by British employers, who, in 1986, were spending around £18 billion a year on training. Now they are likely to be spending more than £20 billion a year, and they have done even better than that. Since 1984 the number of employees receiving training from their employers has increased year in year out, and last year it was no less than 85 per cent. greater than it was just six years before. Moreover, we have put in place a national network of training and enterprise councils—the most radical leap forward in employer commitment to training in this century.
Mr. Ray Powell: The worst measure ever.
Mr. Howard: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield. The Labour party should make up its mind about its policy towards training and enterprise councils—
Mr. Ray Powell: They are the worst thing ever.
Mr. Howard: Indeed?
Mr. Powell: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will listen to someone with experience in training. For 12 years I chaired the CATO—community
activities and training in Ogmore—organisation in
mid-Glamorgan in my constituency. In 1981, 600 people were registered under the community programme as training with the organisation. This year, since the advent of training and enterprise councils, the local TEC has decided to withdraw the contract from CATO, which has had in all 4,000 people training under its auspices, so it has been deprived of a substantial contract. Some 250 places have been lost and 280 have been lost under job training —directly as a result of community enterprise training in mid-Glamorgan.
Mr. Howard: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not give the House the benefit of his views on TECs in general. Those views are far removed from those of his Front-Bench spokesmen. He will know from the experience that he has recounted that the community programme was not a training programme and he ought to appreciate that no Government owe a duty to any or every training provider. We owe a duty to the people who need help and training. The world that the Opposition occupy is a world in which nothing changes. They believe that a training provider with a contract should always retain it, regardless of whether it is providing what is needed to meet current demands.
Mr. Donald Anderson: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so keen on meeting the needs of those who need help, does he deny the clear evidence given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) of the reduction of funds for these TECs?
Mr. Howard: I have explained the position on funding several times—the hon. Gentleman could not have been listening. Perhaps he should have a word with the shadow Chief Secretary, with whose remarks on this subject I shall deal in a moment.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Before my right hon. and learned Friend moves off the subject of TECs, may I tell him that, as an employer of 30 years' standing, I consider that they hold out the best prospect for training for our young people that I have known in my lifetime?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. He is much more in tune with the needs of industry than are Opposition Members.
Together with TECs we are putting in place a new framework to increase dramatically the incentives and opportunities available to individuals to train. We are creating the first ever proper national system of vocational qualifications in this country. We are changing the tax system to give individuals a tax incentive to train. We are building on our world lead in developing open and flexible learning. We are pioneering a system of career development loans to provide further help to individuals who wish to pay for their training.
The White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" is a revolutionary package of measures for young people. Every young person leaving full-time education at 16 or 17 will have a training credit; will have access to the unified system of national vocational qualifications; will be able to have his achievement

355
recognised in a way that gives equal esteem to vocational and academic attainment; will have access to an independent and invigorated further education sector; and will have a national record of achievement, to set out what he has achieved in school, and to build on as he continues to learn throughout working life.
Many of these measures are revolutionary, not just in Britain but in a world context. Training credits are a world first. The reform of vocational qualifications, based on the standards of competence needed for real work in real working situations, is setting an example which other countries want to follow.
The Opposition have no credentials whatever to pontificate about training; their record in Government and in Opposition is one of abysmal failure. It is against that background that we must assess the proposals which they now put forward. Those policies would throw the great progress made since 1979 into complete reverse. Foremost among them is Labour's advocacy of compulsion for the training of young people—of legislating to ban thousands of jobs held by young people. Since Labour also plans to restore benefit entitlement to young people who refuse the offer of a training place, its plans would make it illegal for a young person to take a job without training, but perfectly acceptable for him to choose the dole without training.
That is the programme with which Labour approaches the 1990s. That is the future that it offers our young people. We have abolished the dismal route from school to the dole queue which so many of our young people used to follow. Labour would restore it and encourage people to take it. That is the banner under which the new model Labour party marches into the 1990s. But of course, that is not all. The hon. Member for Sedgefield has promised more money—£900 million of it—on television this morning. The only difficulty is that, every time the hon. Gentleman gets up to promise more money, the shadow Chief Secretary slaps him down and says he cannot have it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) referred earlier to the shadow Chief Secretary's appearance on "On the Record". I am sure that all who had the privilege of witnessing that will long treasure the experience—[HoN. MEMBERS: "It was brilliant."] The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said:
"Only pensions and child benefits are commitments."
She said that Labour must be careful not to confuse commitments which mean something with goals which mean nothing at all. We should understand, she said, that the Labour party could plan to do something and say so publicly, but that that was in no sense an undertaking.
Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the time. The Secretary of State has been speaking for half an hour. Is it not about time that he finished?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I must be wholly neutral. Both Front Benches are tarred with the same brush in this regard.
Mr. Howard: I understand why Opposition Members do not want to listen. The hon. Lady said that Labour might hope to do this or have the intention to do that, but that none of those phrases amounted to a commitment. After all that, she said:
356
"I want the public to judge us on what we are saying".
She talked about Labour's plans for education, health, social security, overseas aid, transport and even for lower taxation, but the hon. Member for Sedgefield should note that she did not once mention training or employment measures, nor did she ever utter the word "priority". I again invite the hon. Gentleman to say exactly where training comes on Labour's list. Is it a commitment or a priority? Is it a priority to which the Opposition are not committed, or a commitment to which they attach no priority?
We may have invented a new game. "Spot the ball" has nothing on "spot the pledge". The rules could be simple. The person who could rank in their correct order Labour's commitments, priorities, undertakings, aims, goals, desires, pledges, promises and objectives would win the prize. We would welcome employees of the Labour party and their families taking part, because they would have no more of a clue than anyone else.
At the next election, the British people will face a clear choice on—the issues of employment and training. It will be a choice between a Government who have created more jobs, more businesses and more wealth than ever before, and an Opposition committed to policies which would destroy millions of jobs, cripple our economy and wreck our future prospects. They will choose between a Government who have done more to advance training in Britain than any other Government this century—and an Opposition who have attacked and tried to undermine every step forward for training made in the past 12 years.
The choice will be between a Government bringing forward radical and necessary reforms to widen opportunity still further and to build upon the successes of the 1980s, and an Opposition determined to narrow choice, undermine excellence and lower quality, taking us back to the failed policies of the 1960s and 1970s. The British people will make that choice decisively, and this Government will remain to carry their mandate into the 1990s and beyond.
8.32 pm
Mr. Huw Edwards: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in this crucial debate.
Like many hon. Members, I enter the House following the death of a Member, in my case Sir John Stradling Thomas. He represented the constituency for 21 years and, as hon. Members know, he was a popular and charming man and his death saddened many people. Before I took my seat, I had the honour to attend his memorial service in the Crypt where the Speaker, in a moving tribute, said that Sir John was proud to be a Welshman and proud to be the Member for Monmouth. I am also proud to be a Welshman and the Member for Monmouth.
I was born and brought up in a fine Welsh community, the Welsh community in London. One of the great advantages of being brought up in that community was that one developed an affection for all parts of Wales—the north, the south and the rural and urban areas. I also developed an affection for people in Welsh-speaking areas as well as for those in non-Welsh-speaking areas. Monmouth has such a mix of people. It has a small number of Welsh speakers and many who do not speak Welsh.
Monmouth is a beautiful constituency, as anyone who visits it will see. I do not need to tell hon. Members about

357
the beauty of the Usk, Wye and Llantony valleys because most of them visited the area during the by-election campaign. Monmouth has beautiful towns, villages and hamlets, one of which is Llanfihangel-Tor-Y-Mynnedd which I invite hon. Members to visit.
Monmouth is a rich farming area with a fine tradition in agriculture. Regrettably, many farmers have faced great difficulties in recent years. They have seen farm prices go down and their interest rates go up. The costs of farming have risen, and many people have left the land. Many farmers in Monmouth are worried that their children will not be able to inherit the farms, and they fear the consequences of losing the family tradition of farming. I hope that I can represent both the farming and the urban communities.
Like many beautiful constituencies, the beauty of Monmouth often masks some of its serious and growing problems. The recession is hitting people throughout the constituency and it affects people in the towns and villages as well as those who work in the private sector and farmers. They have seen the effects of high interest rates and ever growing unemployment. Unemployment in the constituency has risen by 43 per cent. since last June and it is affecting people throughout the constituency. What could be more insulting to the people of Monmouth who only a few years ago were constantly told about Wales's economic miracle than to be told now that those who are out of work are paying a price that is well worth paying to reduce inflation?
I wonder how the people who work in the American Express shop in Abergavenny felt when they were told that, after more than 20 years' service, they were to lose their jobs in six weeks. They did not receive an apology from the company or even much real warning. How did they feel with they were told that they were paying a price that is well worth paying even though their productivity and business increased this year? Such redundancies affect American Express in Neath and Swansea and other areas in south Wales.
Anyone who visits the constituency is welcome to go to the jobcentres in Monmouth and Abergavenny where they will see the jobs and the wage levels on offer. The rates are £2 or £2·50 an hour for vital jobs such as looking after sick people or working in private nursing homes. In such occupations, low pay is a massive problem. People despair when they look at the jobcentre advertisements offering £2·50 an hour. That is less than £100 a week, which is £80 to £90 net take-home pay. For years in the 1980s Ministers said that there was no problem of low pay. Amazingly, they now tell us that a minimum wage policy of only £130 a week, which is all that we are suggesting, would create massive unemployment. They cannot have it both ways.
Unemployment and low pay are inextricably linked, and we often hear the argument that low pay is better than no pay. Such an argument can be used to justify anything. How much below £130 a week do wages have to go? Pay of £6,500 a year when multiplied by three would buy nothing in the property market. People on such pay are totally excluded from that market, yet £130 a week is hardly generous; it is £3·40 an hour.
Figures from the Department of Employment show that in Gwent last year one in four men and six in 10 women earned less than the Council of Europe decency
358
threshold. I worked for the Low Pay Unit on those statistics, and that has had a great influence on me. I shall continue to advance such arguments in the House.
Last year in Gwent, 23 per cent. of women worked full time for less than £120 a week. There is no work ethic like the work ethic of the low-paid. Many of them are working for little more than they would receive on benefit. In effect, they are virtually volunteers, and that is a remarkable work ethic.
That evidence is proof, if proof were needed, that Britain must have a minimum wage policy. Britain is the only country in the EC without one. We have already lost minimum wage protection for people under 21 resulting in ridiculously low levels of pay, low levels of benefit and disqualification from benefit, and we have seen the effect of that on what is supposed to be a civilised society. Young people sleep in doorways in the Strand, destitute, a phenomenon which has arisen only in the past three or four years as the result of the Government's social security, employment and housing policies. That is an insult to a civilised society.
The fear of redundancy, in particular in the national health service, proved an important issue in the recent by-election. At the beginning of the campaign, Guy's hospital announced a possible 600 job losses and the same occurred in hospitals in Bradford. That raised considerable fears among people working in the health service in Monmouth, such as the Nevill Hall hospital and the Mount Pleasant hospital. People feared for the future of the health service and for their employment as a result of the Government's pressure to encourage all hospitals with more than 300 beds and all units to consider opt-out status.
I do not apologise for anything that was said in that campaign. I stand by what I said throughout. The Government's restructuring of the health service amounts to its fragmentation, a way of abrogating responsibility and of ensuring, if not immediately, in years to come, the hiving off of the less profitable areas of the health service, the chronic sector and long-term care, and the possibility —more than a possibility, I think—that the profitable areas could be ripe for takeover by some of the private health organisations such as American Medical International, Humana and BUPA. What guarantee is there that that will not happen should we have another Conservative Government? It was perfectly right to raise those fears and anxieties.
I spoke to many people in the campaign who work in the health service—good administrators, consultants, nurses, paramedical staff and ancillary staff. People at virtually all levels agreed with me that nearly all the principles of the NHS are now being violated as the result of the changes which are now going through. If hospitals want to ditch care of the chronically ill or the mentally ill, they may well do so. The principles of equality and comprehensive care is disappearing. We are having a two-tier system. General practitioners are saying that all the time. Unless general practitioners are budget holders, they will lose when it comes to getting people into local hospitals.
The principle of professional autonomy is disappearing. The medical profession is seeing a cultural revolution in the health service whereby power has gone from those with clinical expertise to those with managerial expertise —the supermarket philosophy. During flu: campaign, nothing could be said about the health service without

359
some of my opponents, and one in particular, using the analogy of the supermarket. When it comes to the NHS, people in my constituency and throughout Britain find supermarket analogies abhorrent.
The hospital that was the focus of the campaign is an ideal district general hospital. It sits under the hills in Abergavenny. Many of its patients come from Blaenau Gwent, Tredegar and Ebbw Vale, as do many of its staff. Tredegar and Ebbw Vale formed the spiritual birthplace of the NHS which established the principles of health care in Britain in the post-war period and those principles and values are widely shared throughout Monmouth and the country as a whole.
The by-election showed the country that those principles of equality, comprehensive provision, universality and collective responsibility are the values of the health service that the British people want to maintain, and I will use every opportunity in the House to advance those principles and to convey people's anxiety about the current restructuring of the health service. I shall continue to serve the constituents of Monmouth in the rural and urban areas to the very best of my ability.
8.45 pm
Mr. Barry Porter: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). He has shown a great commitment to his constituency, to his country and to his predecessor. I do not think that it is too excessive to say that his predecessor was a friend of mine. He was the deputy Chief Whip in this place. On one occasion, because of my views about one or two Government policies, he questioned my parentage, but in the nicest possible way.
I do not intend to question the Government's policy tonight, but I have been somewhat disappointed. I am sorry that I was unable to visit Monmouth, but after my appearance in Ribble Valley and what happened there, I thought that it was as well to keep away. I can understand the hon. Gentleman making his maiden speech on the health service, but I hope that he will excuse me if I do not follow him on that. I understood that the debate was on training and employment, but that is a matter for the hon. Gentleman. However, I had hoped for something rather better from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whom I had hoped would address himself to that topic.
I went to the great length for me of listening to what the hon. Gentleman said. As I understand it, he said that there is a recession and it is the Government's fault and that the London Business School and Cambridge Econometrics say that it will get worse. He then referred to the bit of the OECD forecast which happened to suit his argument, but not, I fear, to the rest. The OECD has the best possible record in forecasting. It gets it right more often than not. It suggests that there will be an increase in economic activity next year, a decrease in inflation and interest rates and that the United Kingdom economy will look rather better than it is at the moment. I do not pretend that it is wonderful at the moment, but then I never pretend that the Government can make things more wonderful or less miserable than most people. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who has gone off for his dinner, should suggest that that is the case.
I waited with eager anticipation for the great miracle, but I waited in vain. We had no more than a garbled speech attacking the Government and their economic
360
policies, and attacking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for making every possible effort to deal with the immediate problems of unemployment, whether they be short-term or long-term.
I find it a little distasteful that a party which in the past has made something of a reputation, and probably a deserved reputation, for itself out of its concern for working men and women and their prospects of employment immediately and in the long term, should then imply, but no more than that, that there is some miracle cure whereby, on the election of a Labour Government, there will be no unemployment. I appreciate that that was not said "in terms", and I cannot be bothered to analyse what was said to Brian Walden a week last Tuesday. But that is not the point: I am talking about the impression that people receive—about general perceptions. I hope that other hon. Members will agree that it is unfair to suggest that any Government, whatever their political colour, can snap their fingers and cure the problem of unemployment.
Let us go back to 1979. I remember the Conservative party poster that told us "Labour Isn't Working"; I suppose that we won the 1979 general election partly as a result of that poster. In those days, we all believed, or purported to believe, that Governments were capable of creating full employment. The Conservative Government believed that in 1970–71, when things started to go wrong—but we too were wrong, and we lost the election in 1974.
Let me tell the Labour party—if it does not mind my offering advice to "this great movement of ours"—that it cannot do it again. Would it not be better if, rather than Labour yah-booing across the Chamber and us boo-yahing back, the whole House admitted that at a time of perpetual change it is best not to pretend that we can solve the problems tomorrow? What we can use are the training systems outlined by the Secretary of State. Perhaps they could be better; perhaps more money could be available; perhaps other ideas could be advanced. But it does no one any good to say, "Your ideas are rubbish." It is clear from what the Secretary of State has said that the Conservative party has gone to enormous lengths to try to solve the unemployment problem, in both the long and the short term. I should have thought that it has done that as well as any party could have.
What positive contribution was made by the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield—not to the problem whether we win or lose the next election but to the problems of the people out there who really lose their jobs, and must face not only that but the possibility of their children losing theirs? He did not say a word about that. Over the past 12 years, we have tried to do what we can. Let us get this into perspective. It is not as though the United Kingdom's problem were unique; it is not, as has already been spelt out. No doubt the London Business School and the Liverpool School of Economics could explain why. Certainly there is no point in my boring the House with the statistics: we know that this is a problem that affects the western industrialised world.
What everyone should know, however, is that there is not a socialist solution to the problem of unemployment. I should have thought that that was self-evident, following the developments in central and eastern Europe. Moreover, I am sorry to have to tell Opposition Members that countries such as Japan and Taiwan, which employ vast numbers, do not do so by means of a minimum wage.

361
I am merely asking Opposition Members to be realistic about one thing. There will not be a general election this month, or in October; I trust that there will not be one until next spring. Can we get rid of the current hysteria and try to do something for the people we purport to represent—the unemployed? The Secretary of State has admitted, very properly, that we loosened the reins too much in 1987. I cannot remember any Opposition Member saying at the time that it was all very wicked, although I may be wrong about that. The way out of the problem, however—for most of the unemployed, at any rate—is lower inflation, lower interest rates, an increase in economic activity and more profits. As someone once said—I forget the name now—"There is no other way."
8.55 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: It gives me great pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on a fine and moving maiden speech. It was outstanding—the best maiden speech that I have ever heard. My hon. Friend is a worthy victor of an outstanding by-election, and we look forward to hearing him speak many times in the future.
The Select Committee on Employment published a report today on employment prospects, which I urge all hon. Members to read. I will not say much more about it, because I believe that we are to debate it on Estimates day; suffice it to say that, according to the CBI, business optimism is now at its lowest for 10 years, and that the Institute of Directors told us that it had never known such bad employment numbers.
As all the witnesses agree, unemployment will rocket for the rest of the year, and will continue to do so next year—certainly until the next election, whether or not that takes place when the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) said it would.
The Government are deliberately using unemployment as a weapon of economic policy. Deflation does not work in a mysterious way; it works by causing unemployment. The blunt club of high interest rates imposed over a long period strangles the economy, deliberately induces recession and causes mass unemployment; and, the Government hope, eventually reduces inflation.
Any fool can reduce inflation by inducing a recession. The successful policy is one that controls inflation while retaining a high level of employment. The present Government have failed to do that for 12 years. They say that their action is necessary to squeeze out inflation, but who put it there in the first place? We experienced one Government-induced recession in the early 1980s, which destroyed 20 per cent. of industry and inflicted unemployment of another 2 million to solve the problem of inflation. There has been a Conservative Government ever since. Why, then, has inflation returned? Because of the crass errors caused by Government economic mismanagement.
In 1988 there was a giveaway Budget, the "big bang" of financial deregulation and the consequent credit binge. Now, after all the pain and suffering of the early 1980s, we must go through it all again. There is no need for any of us to talk about the pain and human suffering that unemployment causes; we have had a graphic and vivid illustration in the interview in Vanity Fair with the former
362
Prime Minister, who explained exactly how much devastation it produces. After 12 years, the Government are squirming with embarrassment at their failure. The Prime Minister said that there would be no recession. When the recession came, he and the Chancellor said that it would be short and shallow. Now, the Chancell3r claims to discern vague stirrings in the economy. Could anything be more pathetic?
We have had 12 years of Conservative Government, 12 years to get it right. We have had 12 years of the North sea oil bonanza and privatisation receipts, yet wt; have a country flat on its back, in deep recession, with the whole of its industry crying with pain. There are redundancies everywhere and unemployment will continue to rocket for as far ahead as anyone can see. We also have a yawning skills gap with our main competitors which is growing wider all the time, and the virtual collapse of training in many industries.
In those circumstances, traditionally we look to the Department of Employment, which hitherto has been an honourable Department. However, we now find the repellant sight of the Secretary of State who oozes complacency and indifference to the unemployed with every utterance suggests that it does not matter and that things are not so bad. As a monetarist, instead of seeking an expansion of the economy, he seems to be urging his Cabinet colleagues to strangle the economy even further. Instead of standing up for his Department's budget, he lays down and encourages the Treasury to walk all over him. He has presided over huge cuts in the Department's budget for adult and youth training.
The previous Secretary of State used to laud employment training. He said:
"ET is the largest, most ambitious programme ever undertaken in its scope and the opportunity it offers."
It was intended to take 600,000 people in any one year. We all remember the propaganda at the time about fitting workers without jobs to jobs without workers. We do not hear much about that now. Instead, there are cuts in ET. The Secretary of State says that the unemployed do not need training.
The Secretary of State launched the training and enterprise councils. The launch was accompanied—he did not disagree with the figure I gave when I intervened during his speech—by large cuts in the budgets of TECs. What a way to encourage and bolster the voluntary activity of those who are giving their time to the TECs. He knows that at the time of the autumn statement the TEC chairman urged him not to cut the budget. Yet he announced a cut of £365 million of which he has now put back only one third. Since then, unemployment has rocketed for 14 consecutive months. The Secretary of State has not obtained a penny piece for the unemployed.
As a result of all that, there is a crisis within the TECs and among the training providers, almost all of whom are having to make many of their trainers redundant. Training for special needs in many parts of the country has come to a complete stop. Does the Secretary of State know that this afternoon the Select Committee took evidence from the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders? It announced that it is making 600 trainers redundant.
I have a letter from a chief executive of a TEC which says that many TECs are doing nothing for women returners. It says that many TECs discriminate—the Secretary of State can have a copy of the letter if he wishes

363
—against women returners because they would have to pay £50 child allowance. Where is the Secretary of State? Where is the battle for a counter-cyclical increase in his training budget? Does he care that training in many industries is collapsing?
For example, the bottom has fallen out of the construction industry. Many firms are going bust. Anyone who does not believe that should look at what is happening in docklands. Construction employers tell me that an extra 100,000 construction workers will be unemployed this year. Does the Secretary of State know that this year there has been a drop of 75 per cent. in apprentices registered in construction? Does he care about that, and is he doing anything about it?
I spoke to the printing employers yesterday. They are now renegotiating youth training with 82 TECs. That is a problem for them. They told me that this year, as a result of smaller cash incentives to firms which are suffering in the recession, there will be a 50 per cent. reduction in youth training in the printing industry. Does the Secretary of State tolerate it?
The country will face increased competition. Where is all the propaganda about gearing up for 1992? If we cut training in the printing industry by 50 per cent., the Germans will wipe the floor with us. They are doing so already. What will the Secretary of State do about that? When disasters and catastrophes are put under his nose, he pretends that he cannot see them and that they are not happening. In fact, he makes trite little comments suggesting that everything is all right. We had an example of that for half an hour this evening. Everything is not all right. It is going from bad to worse. As Secretary of State for Employment, it is his job to do something about it and to stand up and defend his Department's budget, which he is not doing.
I now deal with engineering. I have a document from the Engineering Employers Federation which states:
"present YT funding policies are reversing the important gains made in YTS."
The Government should be coming up with counter-cyclical expenditure on training, which is counter inflationary. However, instead of standing up and fighting its corner, the Department of Employment is actively conniving with the short-termism of the Treasury. That is what we have come to after 12 years of Conservative government. The Government have run the country into a quagmire, and youth training is certainly suffering. The Government are not honouring the youth training guarantee.
Not long ago, we were told that the most urgent problem seemed to be a 33 per cent. drop in the number of school leavers. Now, because of the recession, every budget is being cut and all recruitment is being stopped, and, instead of a shortage of youngsters, there is a surplus, despite the fact that there has been a drop of 33 per cent. Youngsters are now leaving school with no job, no YT place and no benefit. That is happening in my constituency and in the London borough of Newham as a whole.
I hope that the Minister of State is paying attention. During the previous Employment questions I asked him about youngsters who were leaving school in Newham with no YT place. He said that I was misinformed. I try not to be misinformed, so I went back to the borough of Newham and got the figures. At that time, there were 312 young people leaving school in Newham with no job and with no YT place. I immediately wrote a letter to the
364
Minister of State, but I am still waiting for a reply. Why have I not received one and why have I had no apology? I was not ill-informed and I can tell him that the figure has increased. There are now 384 young people in Newham with no job and no YT place. I want him to answer and to reply to my letter.
The Minister might also note that unemployment in my constituency increased by 40 per cent. in the last 12 months. The training boards have been abolished, so there is now no statutory duty on employers to train. Instead, there are supposed to be voluntary industry training organisations, but whatever happened to those organisations? The truth is that most of them are ineffective, underfunded and understaffed—they are run by two men and a dog. What interest do the Government show in them? Virtually none at all.
I have a briefing from the organisation set up for engineering. It states that the Government show no interest in it, only in the TECs. It states:
"What it has not so far specifically done is to give the same active, high profile support for the job that the industry training organisations will do as it has for the important work of the TECs. Clear public commitment of this kind would strengthen the influence of the new bodies."
Where is the Government's commitment to the industry training organisations? There is none. It is patently and blatantly obvious that this is a Government of failure. There is a yawning and widening skills gap which the Government's inaction is compounding.
The public have come to realise that we have a blinkered Government of dogma and false ideology who have failed. The public see the signs of that failure all around them in their everyday lives. They know that we, as a nation, can do better and that to do so we shall need a new Government. The people know that, and the Government know that the people know that. That is why the Government are frightened to have a general election, but they cannot put it off for ever. They must eventually meet their maker—the electorate—and when they do, they will surely reap retribution for the misery of the mass unemployment that they have inflicted on this country and for their failure to achieve an educated work force which will enable this country to compete in the modern world.
9.9 pm
Mr. Simon Coombs: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). He was in his usual characteristically lively form. He has the old socialist principle behind him that one must spend money on a problem and that the more money one spends on it, the more virile is one's attitude and one's position. When the hon. Gentleman calls the Government dogmatic, I remind him that the policies of the Labour party never change: it simply seeks to spend more and more of the taxpayers' money on any problem.
The Government reacted to the problems of the early 1980s by creating the training programme to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred. Now they have taken the radical approach of examining that training programme to find out whether it is delivering value for money. They have changed their policy in order to concentrate more on advice and guidance for the unemployed, rather than imagining that people who have been trained once and lose their job need yet more training.

365
The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen should not fall into the trap of believing that only more and more training will solve the problems of the unemployed. They should not forget enterprise, which is in danger of being the Cinderella of the debate. They should not forget that the people who are losing their jobs at present, particularly in the south-east, already have a high level of skill and had been trained extensively in the work they did. The answer is not always that which the Opposition suggest in their dogmatic fashion.
I come to the debate as one of the stars of the misery index—that is to say, the curious figures sent out every month by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). As I have the sixth largest constituency in the country, inevitably it has a fairly large raw unemployment figure. Fortunately, it is still lower than when I was first elected in 1983. However, I follow the logic of the hon. Member for Sedgefield up to this point. If indeed there is a direct correlation between the level of unemployment and the majority of hon. Members in the House, the fact that unemployment in my constituency is less than half what it was in 1983 when I won the seat leads me to the conclusion that I shall be returned at the general election, whenever it comes, with an increased majority. I do not know exactly how the reverse formula works, but I should have at least double the majority.
As I said in The Guardian this morning, people are not so naive as to judge a Government after 12 years on a single issue. Opposition Members who pin all their hopes on unemployment—it has been made clear in the debate that that is what they are doing—will find that the people of Britain are a little more subtle and sensitive in their judgments and will not be content simply to judge the Government on one set of figures, however inaccurately and misleadingly those figures are presented by the Opposition Front bench team.
I wish to make a few remarks about the causes of the difficulties that we are experiencing in Britain. On Monday this week, I asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a question about the position of the banks, their attitude to small businesses and the rates of interest that they charge for loans. I am delighted to say that, within 24 hours, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) raised exactly the same point in Prime Minister's Question Time, when we learned the satisfying news that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would meet and talk to the leading clearing banks.
At a time when interest rates have fallen by 3·5 per cent. since last October, it is extraordinary that the banks have increased their interest rates and effective lending rates to small businesses in my constituency and elsewhere by as much as 6, 7 or 8 per cent. above the base rate now obtaining in Britain. The banks give as a reason the difficulties that they have experienced in lending to third-world countries. I accept that one must consider that argument, but when one is told that the interest charged to small business in my constituency and elsewhere must be kept high because such firms are a high risk, one asks which is the chicken and which is the egg.
How does arbitrarily raising interest rates help to reduce the risk of small businesses going out of business and causing more unemployment? I hope that the discussions that are to take place between my right hon.
366
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the banks will lead to a different attitude being taken by those lenders who have contributed in their way to some of the problems that this country currently faces.
In Swindon, I have the additional problem of the attitude adopted by the Labour-controlled council, which for the past five years has pursued a policy of preventing employment growth. The council argues that green undeveloped land on the outskirts of the town should be protected, and that, unless the town's infrastructure can catch up, it would be wrong to allow growth to continue. However, it does not argue that the growth that has occurred in my constituency over the past 20 years has turned it from a safe Labour seat into a Conservative seat. It would be unworthy of me even to suggest that that might have anything to do with the council's thinking.
The consequence of the council's policies is that the additional jobs that could have been created by new companies moving into the town—in accordance with the pattern that was seen for 20 years without a break—have come to an end. People who lost their jobs in the past 14 months do not have the hope of new employment that would exist but for the mistaken policy of the local Labour-controlled council.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, there is more to offer the unemployed than training—but when the alternatives are read out, it creates only amusement on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Sedgefield was present in the Chamber a moment ago, but now he is not. If he were in his place, he would have an opportunity to apologise to all those people working in the employment service who dedicate their best efforts to helping the unemployed with the interviews that the hon. Gentleman so mockingly denigrated.
Labour has become the party of instant action—but instant action is nearly always the wrong action. Labour denounce the Government when they suggest that consultation could be useful or that they are considering an issue. Labour want only instant action. The instant action they want now is for large quantities of money to be thrown at the problem of the unemployed—although the Opposition's own shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury says that they cannot have that money anyway.
There is some sense in talking to an unemployed person before sending him or her on a training course. There is some sense in finding out what skills he or she already has, and in trying to match the individual's needs to the job opportunities that exist.
The White Paper on education and training for the 21st century that was published last week belies the Opposition's suggestion that the Government are running out of new ideas. That White Paper enthusiastically endorses the extension of training credit vouchers, which are being taken up all over the country with great interest—particularly by those training and enterprise councils that are piloting the scheme.
I spoke last night to the chairman of the Bradford TEC, who said that, putting the purchasing power of a voucher in young people's hands was the best possible news because, for the first time, they are in control of their destiny. The scheme is being taken up enthusiastically in pilot areas, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will soon decide to extend it across the country, where it will be widely welcomed. The White Paper makes it clear that that is the direction in which the Government are going.

367
I am delighted about the White Paper's commitment further to extend education compacts, which are the right way of bridging the gap between education and industry. Once again, it was bitterly opposed by the Opposition.
The Opposition's policies are designed only to increase unemployment. Had they been in power during the 1987 stock market crash, they would have reflated the economy far more than we did. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was present earlier and was challenged about that; he wriggled and giggled, but had no answer to the fact that, in November 1987, he clearly said that the Labour party would reflate the economy more than the Government. The effect would have been higher inflation.
I do not suggest that a Labour party's reaction to ever higher inflation would have been a deflationary policy, but it would have led to a run on currency, which would have forced it into a high interest rate policy whether it liked it or not. The effect would have been higher deflation and a higher rise in unemployment. We would have been in a position to say to Labour Members, "You got it wrong," as they say to us, but let them never forget that, in late 1987, they believed that we should have gone further with the mistake that we made at that time. Labour Members are the last people to criticise us in that respect.
It is not only the policies that they advocated then that would be disastrous for this country. The national minimum wage is written off by almost everybody who takes an interest in the subject. Trade unionists are anxious to persuade the Labour party not to indulge in that policy. I ask the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) to read the collected thoughts of Mr. Gavin Laird and Mr. Bill Jordan, who are clear on the subject. They say, "Please don't do it." The shadow Chancellor, when asked about the effect of the national minimum wage, said "Maybe one or two people might lose their jobs." Does he not take any notice of what is said by the trade unions, who still seek to run the Labour party?
Mr. Dalyell: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Gavin Laird and Mr. Bill Jordan, he will acknowledge that both were against that was done to the engineering industry training board. They believe in training as it was in the engineering industry, which was very beneficial to my constituency.
Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I always listen carefully to what he has to say, but that was not germane to the point that I was developing. However, it shows that, once something is set in concrete, Opposition Members never seek to change it. No radical spirit is left in the Labour party. It can try only to preserve and conserve. Perhaps we should call it the Conservative party, because that is what it is. It has no ideas for the future only ideas of the past.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East intervened briefly from a sedentary position to say that 11 European countries support the social action programme, but that is not right. Eleven European countries signed the social charter, but if he studies debates in the European Community on the implementation of the charter by draft directives, he will see that there is growing concern about the implications of those proposals for employment.
The Labour party's policies in the future, as in the past, will only drive up the level of unemployment, whereas
368
Conservative policies, by reducing inflation and boosting competitiveness vis-a-vis our partners in Europe and elsewhere, will help to increase prosperity and reduce unemployment, which we rightly regard as a scourge. The Labour party does not understand that. It never has and it never will, because it does not understand the nature of competition.
Our policies are now working. Inflation is coming down and so are interest rates. On the strength of that, in due course, the next general election will be won by the present Government.
9.25 pm
Mr. Michael Carr: It is clear that unemployment is now out of control. The Department of Employment's internal projections are reported as forecasting that 2·6 million people will be out of work by October, and most outside economists expect unemployment to rise above 3 million by March 1992. Moreover, the longer-term outlook is bleak, with unemployment likely to plateau at such levels under present policies. That is hardly a sign of bottoming out, and is certainly not a reason to predict an economic revival early next year. In view of the Prime Minister's grandiose early statements about a classless society, we might have been forgiven for thinking that the economic mismanagement of the Thatcher decade would be remedied forthwith. However, the announcement of a 40 per cent. cut in the employment training budget hardly seems an appropriate first step.
It is scandalous, when unemployment is rising faster than in any other EC country, that the Government saw fit to cut public funding of training. Under this Government, Britain is less skilled, less well educated and less well trained than all our major competitors.
The unemployment figures in themselves are worrying, but they hide more sinister statistics. The real price of unemployment is increased poverty, a rise in homelessness, a deterioration in the nation's health, the deskilling of thousands of our citizens and the cost to the public purse. The Prime Minister has pledged that the Government will be a caring Government, yet his Chancellor of the Exchequer has let slip the fact that Government economic policy is deliberately adding to unemployment in order to reduce inflation. The Chancellor's remark that unemployment was a price "well worth paying" rightly shocked many people, and showed how little the Government are prepared to do to combat high and rising unemployment.
Liberal Democrats fully understand the importance of reducing inflation, but we do no accept that the price for that needs to be a return to mass unemployment. Other countries, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Japan arid the United States, run their economies with lower unemployment and lower inflation, and avoid the high price that the Government seem prepared to pay.
The debate on unemployment in the recession has so far completely ignored the real-world price of unemployment. The most immediate effect of the rise in unemployment will be an increase in poverty. Not only unemployed people, but their families and those who depend on their wages will suffer.
In the 1970s, low pay was accepted as the root cause of poverty. However, figures based on Department of Social Security data were released last month by the Campaign for Work, and they clearly show that unemployment was a key characteristic of poverty in the 1980s. Those figures

369
show that, although poverty is often, rightly, associated with groups such as pensioners, the disabled and lone parents, by far the most common characteristic of the poor is being out of work. Before unemployment finally started to fall after the previous recession, more than 50 per cent. of the poorest families were afflicted by unemployment. It is symptomatic of the way in which people are discussing unemployment in this recession that those figures have not been widely reported.
Such comprehensive figures for the previous recession have only become available in the past year or two, so it is unlikely that data for the effects on poverty of this recession will be available for some time. However, the clear message from the experience of the 1980s is that the recent increase in unemployment will put back the fight against poverty in Britain by several years if the present failure to tackle unemployment persists.
The Government compounded the misery of poverty and strengthened the link between it and unemployment through their social security and taxation policies of the 1980s. Those policies have resulted in a large reduction in the real value of safety net benefits and make poverty an increasing likelihood for many thousands more on the dole. Not only has the real value of unemployment and related benefits been cut since 1979 by about 5 per cent., but the benefit system itself has become more restictive in its regulations and has been starved of the resources that it needs for administrative efficiency. For much of the late 1980s, the Government's policy seemed to be to blame the unemployed for being out of work and then to penalise them through their social security policies.
Many other aspects of the Government's social security and taxation policies will mean that unemployment may be even more closely linked to poverty in this recession. The Government admit, for example, that the poll tax will be with us until at least 1993, with unemployed people liable for at least 20 per cent. of their poll tax bills. The unemployed will now pay water charges, whereas under the rate rebate and supplementary benefit system, they were protected. Such social security and taxation policy changes come on top of measures in other policy areas, which have tended to affect the unemployed disproportionately. Council house rents and rents for private accommodation have increased by well above the rate of inflation. Public transport has suffered from underfunding and from above-inflation price rises.
The evidence linking unemployment with policy could not be clearer; nor can anyone have any doubts about the impact on the unemployed of various policy changes, especially in social security. In terms of poverty, the social costs of unemployment were high during the recession of the 1980s; in this recession, they will be even higher.
In the 1980s and 1990s, homelessness has been closely associated with joblessness. Between 75 and 80 per cent. of homeless people are out of work. Although that may not be surprising, it is important to recognise the vicious circle that is immediately created. Once someone is trapped by homelessness, for whatever reason, employment is hard to come by. That in turn makes securing proper accommodation almost impossible.
370
The figures for repossessions in 1990, when repossessions almost trebled to 43,890, illustrates the changing nature of home ownership since the last recession. As the Council of Mortgage Lenders has commented:
"Unemployment has proved of greater importance this time round and now accounts for almost 10 per cent. of (new) homelessness cases. This is an indication only of the cases where unemployment was cited as the direct cause of homelessness. In many of the other cases unemployment contributed quite substantially to the family/relationship break-ups which account for 60 per cent. of homelessness."
Such evidence highlights the human misery that is caused by unemployment. Unemployment causes stress which in turn, causes family disputes which, in turn, can cause homelessness. The social costs of unemployment can be a vicious spiral of personal misfortune—a vicious spiral that leads to a deep national problem.
There is a general recognition that unemployment represents a deskilling processs, with individuals losing touch with the labour market and finding that their skills become less and less relevant to the market's needs. Those economic consequences are alarming enough, but they pale beside some of the health implications of long-term unemployment. Research is increasingly showing the damaging effects of unemployment on an individual's mental and physical health.
The longitudinal study of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which links death records with the 1971 and 1981 census data, reveals that the death rates of unemployed men and their wives were 21 per cent. above the national average. It is expected that that trend will be reaffirmed by this year's census. A link between suicides and unemployment has also been established. A study in Edinburgh from 1978 to 1982 showed that suicide attempts were 11 times more likely among unemployed people than those in work.
The economic costs of unemployment are also many and varied. They include the direct cost of unemployment to the Exchequer through a higher number of claimants and lower tax receipts, as well as many indirect costs. Despite the meanness of current benefit policy, the social security costs of unemployment are high. The Department of Social Security's expenditure plans show that, for an increase of 100,000 in the number of unemployed, social security payments increase by £305 million.
We hear stories of training credits. They undoubtedly have some merit, but they must be seen in the context of the statistics I mentioned. In Sweden, £12,000 is committed to the training of each unemployed person. The Government are mooting a figure of £1,500. That shows that, in Sweden, unemployment is seen as an opportunity to retrain and reskill the work force. Unfortunately, the Government see unemployment as an economic necessity and as a political irritant.
The loss to the economy of deskilling many members of the work force is particularly serious because the effects can last for years. We believe that training is the key to ensuring that the long-term levels of unemployment fall. Filling skills vacancies with skilled workers seems to be no longer the main aim of Government employment policies. The Government also seem reluctant to recognise the need to retrain those already in work. If Britain is to keep pace in the world economy, one that will increasingly demand a skilled and technologically advance work force, the Government must commit substantial funds to education and training now.
9.36 pm
Mr. Henry McLeish: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend from Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) for his maiden speech. It was an eloquent, reasoned and dignified contribution, and we all welcome the fact that he mentioned, with fond memories, the previous Member for that constituency. We look forward to many contributions of that quality in the years to come.
This has been an interesting debate, as two worlds have collided in their perception of training and the unemployed in this country. The excellent speech from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) injected a dose of reality into the debate, but I found the speech of the Secretary of State for Employment simply remarkable. We were treated to a story of no cuts—just adjustments—the most comprehensive provision for the unemployed, record-breaking achievements, the best training provision this century and revolutionary methods. That world may be inhabited by the Secretary of State for Employment, but it is not inhabited by Labour Members and those outside the House.
The key issue is why, after creating unemployment, the Government are effectively doing nothing to help the unemployed. Why is it that, after acknowledging publicly the depth of the skills crisis, the Government have cut the training budget? Why is it that, after 12 years of Conservative government, Britain is less equipped than any nation in Europe to embrace the challenges, respond to the changes and improve our competitiveness in the new economic realities of the 1990s? Why are the Government unable and unwilling to tackle the issues which are immediate and urgent and which lie at the heart of Britain's future in the 21st century?
The debate has rightly focused on the importance of the recession. It has focused on the breaking of guarantees to young people and adults. It has focused on the selling out of the TECs after they were offered such a warm send-off. They were not advised that they would have no responsibilities or proper cash provision. We have focused on the scandal of special needs. It is morally objectionable for the Government to seek to cut funds from the schemes that provide not only skills but social support to the most vulnerable in the community. Will the Under-Secretary refer to that point?
Unemployment is a crisis. Put simply, Britain's labour market is in total disarray. That is the legacy of 12 wasted years in which the Government have been in office. We were not informed in their manifestos of 1979, 1983 and 1987 that mass unemployment would be a permanent characteristic of their economic policies. Rather, we were offered economic miracles and the Chancellor confirmed that we are experiencing one.
We were offered industrial renaissance, and the deposed former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) talked about the rebirth of Britain. If that is the case, why are we in such an appalling economic mess, with recession deep, levels of economic activity low, and disillusionment with the Government's ability to cope so widespread?
I shall focus in the remaining few minutes on the Government's unemployment record. The Government cannot now trade excuses in public. They cannot blame scapegoats or find anyone on whom to pin the responsibilities that they have discharged so ineffectively
372
over the past decade. Why is unemployment now rising faster in Britain than anywhere else in Europe? In Europe in the past year, unemployment among the under-25s has been, on average, 1 per cent., whereas in Britain it has been 32 per cent. Why has unemployment in Britain increased by 100 per cent. since 1979? Why have the number of vacancies slumped by over 26 per cent. and why have the number of people chasing each job increased by 136 per cent.? That does not smack of an economic miracle but of something quite different.
Although the Government make great play with their employment growth record, which is the other side of the labour market coin, it is stripped of double jobbers and training places. The Government have created only 460,000 part-time jobs in 12 years. What kind of a record is that to be parading around Britain? It is the worst record of employment growth among OECD countries. I challenge the Government to respond to those statistics, because I always use their statistics, courtesy of the computer at the Department of Employment. The Labour party will continue to take advantage of that excellent facility.
Why have we now lost 2,112,000 manufacturing jobs and 163,000 construction industry jobs? That does not smack of an economic miracle for those in manufacturing, who now find themselves with no future in that area.
Why have apprenticeships in the manufacturing industry slumped from 266,000 in 1979 to a miserable 87,000 in December 1990? The crisis in manufacturing is that training has been ripped out of it, and we now have very few apprenticeships, while countries such as Germany, France and Scandinavia are pushing forward. They see a future and they invest. In the early 1960s, in periods of Conservative Governments, there was always a slump in the number of vacancies. Why did we have the highest unemployment this April since the 1930s?
It must be submitted that that is not the stuff of which miracles are made. Day in and day out, we are still told that the Government have created employment and that things are not so bad. This evening, the Secretary of State for Employment suggested that a commitment made in Scotland to eliminate unemployment was still on their agenda. If that is so, the Scots see little chance of it becoming a reality.
To find a microcosm of the panic measures and the ineffectiveness of Government economic policy in this country, we need look no further than London, which we discussed earlier today. The conning of the capital by the Conservatives during the past decade is simply breathtaking. Why is it that, in London, vacancies have slumped by 75 per cent. in a decade? Why is it that unemployment has risen by 300 per cent—not doubled, but trebled? Why has the number of people in London chasing each job increased by 1,000 per cent.? Londoners have been conned by a Government unwilling to tell the story that is now unfolding as we approach the general election.
Of course, the Government always respond by saying, "What about our jobs record?" What about it? Figures published by the Department suggest that, excluding training places, 40,000 jobs have been created in Britain's capital city in 10 years—4,000 jobs a year for a population of 6 million or 7 million. That is a simply breathtaking statistic when viewed in relation to the Government's claims made day in and day out.
We ask simple questions. Why is it that, faced with 2·6 million unemployed in October and possibly 3 million

373
unemployed next year, the Government will provide no cash for a temporary work scheme? Why, when faced with a deepening skills crisis, will the Government not reinstate the £400 million cuts that have been made? Why, when the training and enterprise councils flagship is in danger of sinking, is there no funding or leadership from the Government? After 12 years, why do we have a labour market which is in disarray and has no strategic overview?
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McLeish: No.
The answer to all those questions is no, no, no—because the Government simply do not care about what is happening. The Prime Minister has been attacked for his dithering. I can say with sincerity that the Secretary of State for Employment and his Ministers are dithering and drifting and not providing the direction that is badly needed in Britain.
Other Ministers have tried to help the unemployed. There have been various changes, including fiddling the figures and removing people from the unemployed figures. The restart scheme, which involved recycling, was introduced by Lord Young of Graffham. There was ridicule when it was suggested that we should train the workers without jobs to fill the jobs without workers. The removal, recycling and ridicule are now to be followed by amazing inactivity.
Tonight, we have heard that our attack on the Government's employment record is hurting. The misery index has been mentioned, and we have heard overtures this evening to suggest that we should have a truce until next year. I offer Conservative Members a helpline. We are willing to listen to them and give them the statistics that the Government will not. If they phone my office, we shall not ask them to leave their name. They can remain anonymous: they need merely leave their majority and the number of their constituents on the dole—we shall do the rest.
We know that the Government's record on both jobs and unemployment is deplorable. We need a change of Government before we can tackle the problems ahead of us. The only unemployment that we want to see is among Ministers and Conservative Members. To that end, we shall fight and win the election, and give skills and the jobless a high priority in a Labour Government.
9.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): I start by apologising for missing part of the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I know that he will accept my reason for not being here as I was returning from a visit to the Federal Republic of Germany, where I was studying training arrangements in that country. I answered many interested questions from the Germans about recent developments in our training policy, particularly training credits, which the Germans view positively and about which they were very encouraging.
I shall try to answer some of the questions posed by hon. Members during the debate, then offer one or two reflections on what is revealed by the exchanges on unemployment between the parties.
374
I congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on his maiden speech and, as other hon. Members did, on the fitting words that he used about his distinguished predecessor. I must say that I disagreed with what he had to say about the minimum wage. He should attend to the question put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State about the job destruction effects of a minimum wage to the hon. Member for Sedgefield—a question that was not answered. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps answer it; I hope that he will take it seriously. He will find that it pays in this House to listen carefully to what each of us has to say and then to do intellectual justice to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) made a thoughtful speech with whose tone and substance I very much agreed, but I shall return later to some of what he had to say.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the Chairman of the Select Committee, claimed that the youth training guarantee is not being honoured. I apologise for not yet having replied to his letter about YT opportunities in Newham. I shall ask for a draft tomorrow and reply as soon as I can thereafter. I emphasise that the Government are firmly committed to that youth training guarantee. This year we have increased spending on YT even though the number of young people has fallen by 5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's assertion about the guarantee cannot be true globally speaking, however, for the simple reason that we have not reached the end of the school year and thus do not yet know how many claims will have been made on YT.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) referred to alleged breaches of the guarantee, too. That was a bit rich coming from a member of a party that failed when in power to offer any guarantees to the unemployed.
Mr. McLeish: Is the Minister prepared to state that there is no TEC area in the country in which the guarantee is not being honoured?
Mr. Jackson: I have already explained that that does not arise until we know how many school leavers there are. We are firmly committed to the guarantee, and we will discharge it.
I particularly agreed with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) about the Employment Service and its value in advising and counselling the unemployed. The mocking words of the hon. Member for Sedgefield about the service were a serious misjudgment. He will find that all the professionals in the field will confirm the value of this kind of assistance. Every month, the Employment Service places about 100,000 unemployed people in work, and Opposition Members would do well to support this work, not to denigrate it.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) went on at considerable length about things that we already know about unemployment, but he conspicuously failed to come up with positive suggestions about what to do about it—and I very much regret that.
What I want to say next is perhaps a little unusual for a wind-up speech on an occasion such as this. One of the most interesting features of the debate has been the extent of the common ground between Government and Opposition. Some obvious common ground is to be found in our shared concern about unemployment and about the

375
position in which unemployed people find themselves. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley should not claim a monopoly of concern for himself or his party.
Moreover, there is considerable common ground about what should be done and what can be done to help the unemployed. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South was so right about that. There is no dispute between the Government and the Opposition about the importance of fighting inflation, either. The Opposition have come to accept the Government's view that there is no trade-off to be made between higher inflation and lower unemployment: we cannot spend our way out of unemployment.
Secondly, reference to a pay policy was conspicuously absent from the speeches of the hon. Members for Sedgefield and for Fife, Central. The Opposition, in short, accept the Government's view that state intervention in pay bargaining is not the right way to fight unemployment. That too is a major piece of common ground.
Mr. James Wallace: The Minister said that he agreed with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) said about unemployment causing homelessness, poverty and ill health. We do not think that such a price is worth paying, but the Chancellor does. That is the important difference between us.
Mr. Jackson: I was trying to set out the areas of common ground. The speech by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley gave few clues to what the Liberal Democrats would do.
The third area of common ground between the Government and the Opposition is that, in response to probing by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, it became clear that the Opposition's commitment to spending on training is hedged about with many qualifications on affordability. Plainly, the Opposition accept the Government's view that it is impossible for Government to beat unemployment by increasing public spending on training.
The debate has shown that the Opposition have no miracle cure for unemployment, a phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South was absolutely right to use. The Government have no miracle cure either, and nor have the Liberal Democrats.
The debate has shown a surprising amount of common ground on unemployment policies, but it also reminds us of what continues to be a fundamental difference between the parties. Government policy is committed to the principle of deregulation, to increased flexibility in the labour market, and to a reduction in the cost of employing labour, and that policy succeeded in creating more than 3 million new jobs in the 1980s. The Opposition are committed to a variety of measures to regulate the labour market, and they will all increase the cost of employing labour, reduce employment and destroy job opportunities.
The Opposition have chosen to focus on the problems of unemployment, and they owe the House and the country answers to the questions about their policies. I had hoped for some enlightenment from the hon. Member for Fife, Central, but there was none. I shall repeat some of the questions. Has the hon. Member for Sedgefield estimated the number of jobs that would be destroyed by the Opposition's industrial relations proposals? Has the hon. Gentleman estimated the number of jobs that would be lost if his proposals for a training levy were implemented
376
because those proposals would add to industry's costs? If he has made such an estimate, perhaps he will tell us the number of jobs that will be destroyed. The hon. Gentleman nods, so I expect that he will do so in the near future.
Does the hon. Member for Sedgefield agree with the CBI estimate that the European social action programme, which his party endorses, will cost about 100,000 jobs? If he disagrees with that estimate, perhaps he will tell us why and let us know how many jobs he is prepared to see that programme destroy.
What is the Opposition's response to the Fabian Society's pamphlet about the job destruction effects of Labour's minimum wage policy? We have repeatedly asked that question but have had no answer. Does the hon. Member for Sedgefield agree with the Fabian Society estimate of 850,000 lost jobs? If he disagrees, perhaps he will tell us why.
To do justice to the hon. Member for Sedgefield, I should say that he has made some progress in shifting the Opposition's policy on employment and training away from some of the rather sterile and unconstructive posturing in which his predecessor engaged in the 1980s. We remember the line taken by the Opposition about youth training and the technical and vocational education initiative. The Leader of the Opposition said that they were fit only for hewers of wood and drawers of water, but now they are very popular with the Opposition.
To hear what the Opposition have to say about employment training, one would think that they had supported it from the start, but that was never the case. The hon. Gentleman has made some headway in making his party adopt a more constructive position, but until he is prepared to give some serious answers to the questions being put about the Opposition's policy, I fear that all his well-honed rhetoric will simply lack in credibility.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 284.

Division No. 158]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Buckley, George J.

Allen, Graham

Caborn, Richard

Alton, David

Callaghan, Jim

Anderson, Donald

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Armstrong, Hilary

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Canavan, Dennis

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Ashton, Joe

Carr, Michael

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Clelland, David

Barron, Kevin

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Battle, John

Cohen, Harry

Beckett, Margaret

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Beith, A. J.

Corbett, Robin

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Corbyn, Jeremy

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

Cousins, Robin

Benton, Joseph

Cox, Tom

Bermingham, Gerald

Crowther, Stan

Blair, Tony

Cryer, Bob

Boateng, Paul

Cummings, John

Boyes, Roland

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bradley, Keith

Cunningham, Dr John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dalyell, Tam

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Darling, Alistair

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

377

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

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dewar, Donald

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Dixon, Don

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Dobson, Frank

Martlew, Eric

Doran, Frank

Meacher, Michael

Douglas, Dick

Meale, Alan

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Michael, Alun

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Eadie, Alexander

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Eastham, Ken

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Edwards, Huw

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Morgan, Rhodri

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Morley, Elliot

Fatchett, Derek

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Fearn, Ronald

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Mowlam, Marjorie

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

Murphy, Paul

Fisher, Mark

Nellist, Dave

Flynn, Paul

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

O'Brien, William

Foster, Derek

O'Hara, Edward

Foulkes, George

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Fraser, John

Patchett, Terry

Fyfe, Maria

Pendry, Tom

Galloway, George

Pike, Peter L.

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Prescott, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

Primarolo, Dawn

Gordon, Mildred

Quin, Ms Joyce

Gould, Bryan

Radice, Giles

Graham, Thomas

Randall, Stuart

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Reid, Dr John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Richardson, Jo

Grocott, Bruce

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hain, Peter

Rogers, Allan

Harman, Ms Harriet

Rooker, Jeff

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Rooney, Terence

Haynes, Frank

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Rowlands, Ted

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Ruddock, Joan

Henderson, Doug

Salmond, Alex

Hinchliffe, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Sheerman, Barry

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hood, Jimmy

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Sillars, Jim

Howells, Geraint

Skinner, Dennis

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hoyle, Doug

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

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Soley, Clive

Illsley, Eric

Spearing, Nigel

Ingram, Adam

Steinberg, Gerry

Janner, Greville

Stott, Roger

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Strang, Gavin

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Straw, Jack

Kennedy, Charles

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Kirkwood, Archy

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Lamond, James

Turner, Dennis

Leadbitter, Ted

Vaz, Keith

Leighton, Ron

Wallace, James

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Walley, Joan

Lewis, Terry

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Livingstone, Ken

Wareing, Robert N.

Livsey, Richard

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Loyden, Eddie

Wilson, Brian

McAllion, John

Winnick, David

McKelvey, William

Worthington, Tony

McLeish, Henry

Wray, Jimmy

Maclennan, Robert

McMaster, Gordon

Tellers for the Ayes:

Madden, Max

Mr. Allen McKay and

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

378

NOES

Adley, Robert

Favell, Tony

Aitken, Jonathan

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Fookes, Dame Janet

Amos, Alan

Forman, Nigel

Arbuthnot, James

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Forth, Eric

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Ashby, David

Fox, Sir Marcus

Aspinwall, Jack

Franks, Cecil

Atkins, Robert

Freeman, Roger

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

French, Douglas

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Fry, Peter

Baldry, Tony

Gale, Roger

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Gardiner, Sir George

Batiste, Spencer

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Gill, Christopher

Beggs, Roy

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bellingham, Henry

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Bendall, Vivian

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Goodlad, Alastair

Bevan, David Gilroy

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gorst, John

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Body, Sir Richard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Boswell, Tim

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Bottomley, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Grist, Ian

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Ground, Patrick

Bowis, John

Grylls, Michael

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hague, William

Brazier, Julian

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bright, Graham

Hampson, Dr Keith

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

Hannam, John

Browne, John (Winchester)

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

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Harris, David

Budgen, Nicholas

Haselhurst, Alan

Burns, Simon

Hawkins, Christopher

Burt, Alistair

Hayes, Jerry

Butler, Chris

Hayward, Robert

Butterfill, John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Carrington, Matthew

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Carttiss, Michael

Hill, James

Cash, William

Hind, Kenneth

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hordern, Sir Peter

Chapman, Sydney

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Chope, Christopher

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

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Conway, Derek

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Irvine, Michael

Cope, Rt Hon John

Irving, Sir Charles

Cormack, Patrick

Jack, Michael

Couchman, James

Jackson, Robert

Cran, James

Janman, Tim

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Curry, David

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Key, Robert

Day, Stephen

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Devlin, Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dicks, Terry

Knapman, Roger

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Dover, Den

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Dunn, Bob

Knox, David

Durant, Sir Anthony

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Dykes, Hugh

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Eggar, Tim

Latham, Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Evennett, David

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Fallon, Michael

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

379

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Lyell, Fit Hon Sir Nicholas

Porter, David (Waveney)

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Portillo, Michael

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Powell, William (Corby)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Price, Sir David

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

McLoughlin, Patrick

Redwood, John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Riddick, Graham

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Madel, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Malins, Humfrey

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Mans, Keith

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Maples, John

Rost, Peter

Marlow, Tony

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Maude, Hon Francis

Sayeed, Jonathan

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Shaw, David (Dover)

Miller, Sir Hal

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Mills, Iain

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Miscampbell, Norman

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Mitchell, Sir David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Monro, Sir Hector

Shersby, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Sims, Roger

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Moss, Malcolm

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Speller, Tony

Needham, Richard

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Nelson, Anthony

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Squire, Robin

Nicholls, Patrick

Stanbrook, Ivor

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Steen, Anthony

Norris, Steve

Stern, Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Stevens, Lewis

Oppenheim, Phillip

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Page, Richard

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Paice, James

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Patnick, Irvine

Sumberg, David

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Summerson, Hugo

Patten, Rt Hon John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Pawsey, James

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

380

Temple-Morris, Peter

Watts, John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wells, Bowen

Thurnham, Peter

Wheeler, Sir John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Whitney, Ray

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Widdecombe, Ann

Tracey, Richard

Wiggin, Jerry

Tredinnick, David

Wilkinson, John

Trippier, David

Wilshire, David

Trotter, Neville

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Twinn, Dr Ian

Winterton, Nicholas

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wolfson, Mark

Viggers, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Walden, George

Yeo, Tim

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Waller, Gary

Tellers for the Noes:

Walters, Sir Dennis

Mr. David Lightbown and

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on the success of policies which have created over a million new jobs since 1979; welcomes the introduction of the most comprehensive range of measures ever available to help the unemployed back to work; notes the very substantial increase in spending on training over the last 12 years; and, in particular, supports the measures in the recent White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century.

Training and the Unemployed

  DANGEROUS DOGS BILL
  Mr. Joseph Ashton rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The motion is not debatable.
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Dangerous Dogs Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Housing (Govan)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
10.16 pm
Mr. Jim Siliars: I want to raise with the Minister the question of housing in the constituency of Govan. It is axiomatic that, as the constituency of Govan is part of the city of Glasgow, our housing problems arise from the condition of that city and our problems will be solved only if Glasgow's policies and resources are adequate to meet housing needs.
I begin by putting a question to the Minister: is there a housing problem on a scale that demands extraordinary action well beyond the present resources that have been applied within the city of Glasgow? That is the key question. There are two responses. The first is the Government's response as conveyed to me in a letter from the Prime Minister dated 29 May this year. His answer was no. The second is that expressed by experts, investigators, the council and councillors in Glasgow, the city's officials, the city's Members of Parliament and, above all, by the experience of the people. Their answer to the question is yes; there is an exceptional problem that requires exceptional action.
I shall set out in the course of my argument the relative terms of the Prime Minister's letter and I shall then examine them against our arguments from Glasgow and from within Govan. I believe that those who argue against the Government will be able to prove conclusively that there must be an urgent response to the private cries of despair from the families who are tortured by dampness, overcrowding, poor environment and homelessness and those who are terrified because there is no security for their homes.
Let me read a relevant passage from the Prime Minister's letter that I received in reply to one of mine:
"I recognise that a substantial proportion of Glasgow's council housing suffers some degree of dampness and condensation, although the returns made by the District Council to the Scottish Office indicate that the problem is not as extensive as is quoted in your letter."
Glasgow district council house condition survey shows that 38 per cent. of the city's public sector housing stock —62,400 houses—is affected by dampness and condensation. The tenants argue that 53 per cent. of the housing stock—87,000 houses—is affected.
The tenants' views are not lightly dismissed in the house condition survey. In paragraph 4.14 it says:
"In the tenants' view, 53 per cent. of GDC houses had a dampness or condensation problem, much more than the 38 per cent. reported by surveyors, and much more than in any other tenure. The tenants' estimate probably includes recent or recurrent problems not visible when the surveyors made their inspection."
The district council does not dismiss the argument that 87,000 rather than 62,000 houses are affected.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that Glasgow district council's figure is correct and that 38 per cent., or 62,400 houses, are affected. That figure represents human misery on an appalling scale and it is reflected in Govan constituency. The housing condition survey showed that in my constituency 57·8 per cent. of the housing is below tolerable standards of dampness or has condensation or some significant dampness or condensation. It is no wonder that 57·8 per cent. of the housing stock is in that
382
condition because, according to the survey, 31·3 per cent. of houses lack central heating and 20 per cent. of houses lack roof insulation.
Even if the tenants' figure is not accurate and the council's figure, on which the Prime Minister relies, is correct, the Prime Minister acknowledges that a substantial proportion of Glasgow council housing suffers some degree of dampness and condensation. We have an admission from the Prime Minister that there is a pretty big problem. What is his response? Unfortunately, it is self-satisfaction. In his letter to me he gave no sign that the Government understand the true position in Glasgow or Govan.
The Prime Minister continued in his letter to tell me:
"Glasgow's gross HRA allocation for 1991–92 is over £100 million, which amounts to 22 per cent. of the Scottish total although Glasgow's share of council housing in Scotland is under 20 per cent."
The Prime Minister showed a fair degree of self-satisfaction in boasting about the figure of £100 million. I will tell the Minister what that translates to in real terms in my constituency. For new capital starts this year, we have the princely sum of £280,000. That was allocated to one project, phase 1 of re-wiring Mossheights. That is an allocation for new capital starts of £280,000 in an area which has 14,500 council houses. That cannot possibly touch people's needs for new windows, replacement of lead pipes, roof repairs or extensive renovation.
I shall list some of the areas in my constituency. There is Hillington, Penilee, Cardonald, Mosspark, Dumbreck, Corker hill, Drumoyne, Teucharhill, Moorpark, Ibrox, Cessock, Riverside, Tarfside Oval, Old Govan itself, Craigton and Shieldhall. Corkerhill requires £1 million to be spent to put pitched roofs on houses with flat roofs which are letting in water day in and day out. Such is the condition of the flat roofs that, when the workmen go on them to patch them, they break up the roof. Water penetrates those homes daily, and dampness spreads to increase illness among the children and other members of the community. Shieldhall, for example, requires work to the value of £1 million. I could cite case after case in which there is a crying need for investment, which cannot possibly be met from new start capital of £200,000.
Acute problems exist in all the areas I mentioned—including overcrowding and homelessness. The right-to-buy policy has increased to the point where there is a shrinking council house sector. Glasgow people cannot do what they used to do—move up the housing quality chain. That was once the way of life in Glasgow. It was rough justice, but it was accepted that, one day, one could move from poor housing conditions into better conditions. That choice is no longer available to the people of the city.
A report produced by the technical services agency for District 31, a Govan community council, confirms evidence produced by Corkerhill community council, and illustrates the need to tackle the scourge of dampness and condensation which makes life a nightmare and is a cause of despair for so many people. The report concludes:
"These properties, with the operations outlined in this report, could provide housing of a standard fit for the next century. As they are, however, the balconies will continue to give rise to penetrating dampness, and the present insulation/ventilation and partial central heating system will make them expensive to heat, throughout, to a level where thermal safety … could be achieved. As a result, the elderly tenants in particular will suffer from cold stress-related illnesses, while large families will experience outbreaks of mould to thermally-isolated parts of their homes."

383
That reference to mould reminds me of a statement by a lady in Corkerhill in respect of the letter written by the Minister in response to a complaint about a lack of housing investment. The Minister replied that Glasgow was the city of culture—implying that things were a lot better there. At a public meeting during Glasgow's year as the city of culture, a lady said to me, "Aye, culture—I've had it growing on my walls for a year."
Earlier this year, Glasgow's municipal housing convenor was quoted in The Glaswegian newspaper as saying that it would take 300 years and more than £2 billion to make the city's housing damp-free. He said:
"We're in complete sympathy with tenants' anger. But the Government won't let us spend anything like the amount that's needed."
Three hundred years is a bit long for folk to wait.
Security is another problem in my constituency, as it is in other parts of the city—especially where there is much drug-related crime. Old people and others are living in anxiety and terror. They are terrified to use the lifts. They are also frightened about staying at home in case their doors are kicked in and they are attacked. They are terrified to leave their homes, in case their doors are kicked in while they are out and various items of household furniture, televisions, videos, pension books, and money are taken.
I can give the Minister an example from Ibroxholm Oval, which is a couple of hundred yards from my own constituency office. Last week, there were 11 break-ins in that area in the course of just five days, and two old people were severely assaulted. One young girl has suffered five break-ins. There was virtually nothing left to take from her flat except the lass's kettle—and last week, that was stolen as well. People living in such conditions are absolutely terrified. The fundamental problem is that they have no secure door entry systems. The district council, to its credit, installed concierge services in Iona court and Broomlown court, which are on either side of Ibroxholm Oval, but that made Ibroxholm Oval the major target for folk who engage in crime, and everything that happens will happen inside Ibroxholm Oval.
Security is not only a housing but a law and order issue. The Government must act with a special allocation of money specifically for security. Our old people deserve no less.
The problems that I have described demand action and the mobilisation of resources. The Government have it within their power to act. One measure would transform the prospects for meeting people's housing needs—the writing off of the city's housing capital debt of £976 million. That huge burden imposes a huge penalty on tenants. It means that 75p in every pound of rent collected goes to meet debt charges. With that burden around the neck of the council and tenants, there is no chance of effectively tackling the housing crisis facing Glasgow and Govan families.
I put that to the Prime Minister. It is not a new suggestion or an idea that I have invented, because it can be found in the Grieve report on Glasgow's housing. That was an objective study. It was set up by the district council, but it was not laudatory of everything that the council has done. It was an objective panel—Sir Robert Grieve, the late Sir Monty Finniston, Professor Karn and Ian Clark. They suggested wiping off the capital debt.
That is a valid idea for a Tory Government, because since 1979 they have written off £15 billion of capital debt.
384
For example, £4·9 billion was written off to privatise the English water companies and £3·4 billion was written off to privatise British Steel. If they can write off that capital debt to stuff the pockets of people who will make a profit from it, they can do something for the people of Glasgow.
Writing off just under £1 billion would compare favourably with the £2·7 billion that is calculated to be the advantage to the south-east of England of mortgage interest relief. I put that to the Prime Minister. His reply was that Glasgow, in acknowledgment of that capital debt, is receiving just over £22 million in housing support grant —the exact figure is £22·7 million. He said in his letter to me that Glasgow has enough money to meet expenditure. It is not meeting expenditure that is at issue but whether that expenditure is enough to meet the housing needs of the people, and the answer is no.
I want to put that figure of £22·7 million in context. It must be realised that it is only a part payment of the huge amount of interest that must be repaid on the capital debt. I do not know the figure for the current year, but in 1991 it cost Glasgow £119 million to service the capital debt —£19 million more than the £100 million that the Prime Minister boasted will go to Glasgow this year. When one compares that £100 million about which the Prime Minister boasted with the £195 million that the Grieve report said would have to be invested in Glasgow's housing, one begins to see how the Government are failing the people of Glasgow.
Compared with other parts of Scotland, Glasgow has a low income per household. Therefore, it is heavily reliant on council housing. Unfortunately, it tops the list of major cities for social deprivation and need. The justification for those statements is contained in the Grieve report, yet people still live in those adverse circumstances and face dampness and illness, overcrowding, lack of maintenance and inadequate security. They are lumbered with a housing debt that they simply cannot meet.
As the Grieve report said, Glasgow is a special case. Within Glasgow, Govan—along with other areas of the city—represents a special case. I want what the people will demand—a capital debt write-off as the prerequisite of a real attack on housing problems, and an emergency injection of cash—now—for security purposes.
Ordinary folk in Govan and other parts of the city of Glasgow have a human right, and that human right is to enjoy the same kind of housing that the Minister and I can buy for ourselves and our families—in terms of spaciousness, comfort and security. That is the challenge that I put to the Government tonight, and I hope that I shall get a positive response.
10.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) on his success in securing this Adjournment debate. He has raised a number of issues. Many of the criticisms that he voiced were directed at Glasgow district council, whose responsibility it is—within the allocation made available to it—to address housing needs. I have no doubt that the council will take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments about Corkerhill and about dampness, of his call for more security systems and of all the other points that he matte about individual housing schemes in Glasgow.

385
The hon. Gentleman has recently made critical comments about Scottish Homes. I should mention to him the fact that no less than £82 million is being spent by Scottish Homes in the Glasgow area this year, a considerable proportion of it in Govan—a point to which I shall return in a moment.
Glasgow has been generously treated in terms of capital allocations, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, have totalled more than £100 million, representing more than 22 per cent. of the total resources, while Glasgow's proportion of Scottish local authority housing is just under 20 per cent. I should also mention the fact that an additional allocation of £750,000 has been made available to Glasgow to enable the council to introduce proposals for a wide range of accommodation to house the young and single homeless.
Moreover, under the partnership initiative, considerable sums have been made available to Castlemilk and the final HRA allocations included £26·9 million to support housing regeneration projects in the Castlemilk partnership area, which, as I know the hon. Gentleman would agree, has some of the most pressing problems anywhere in Scotland. We have made available further additional resources, amounting to £21·8 million for innovative projects in Ardencraig, Scarrel, Glenacre and Croftfoot in Castlemilk over six years.
The hon. Gentleman asked about dampness and condensation. In recognition of the extent to which those problems affect Glasgow's housing—including housing in areas such as Corkerhill—the council has been invited to bid for a share of the additional resources of £2 million which we are making available for energy savings and efficiency projects, and I hope to announce the distribution of those resources shortly.
Glasgow's non-HRA capital allocations amount to more than £24 million for 1991–92. Overall investment in housing in Glasgow this year amounts to more than £125 million, setting aside the resources earmarked for the innovative housing projects in the Castlemilk partnership area. That means that the council has resources of more than £109 million in aggregate for investment elsewhere in the city.
I am very sympathetic to the needs of Glasgow and believe that those allocations are tangible evidence of our commitment to regeneration in Glasgow. I should point out that it is open to the district to increase the resources available by encouraging more council house sales. Let me give an example. Since 1979, only 12·4 per cent. of Glasgow's council houses have been sold, compared with more than 20 per cent. in Scotland as a whole. Part of the reason for that lies in the fact that the council is taking about 12 months to process applications. Its average processing time for such sales amounts to more than 11 months. I regard that as quite unacceptable. Another example is the grudging reluctance of the council to meet—
Mr. Tony Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I am answering the hon. Member for Govan, and there are many points to answer in the limited time available.
386
Our recent publicity campaign on rents into mortgages revealed that more than 20,000 tenants in Scotland were interested. Some 4,400 came from the Glasgow area, representing 23 per cent. of the Scottish total. The district council has produced a leaflet, mentioning that only two tenants from East Kilbride and eight from Glasgow have taken up the scheme. In fact, the latest figures show that 13 sales have been completed in East Kilbride and 19 in the Glasgow region of Scottish Homes. The latest figures show that there have been 249 applications from local authority tenants under the scheme—16 from Glasgow district council—and that a further 149 tenants from Glasgow have requested counselling visits. One thousand rents-to-mortgage sales in Glasgow would produce about £9 million of receipts for Glasgow district council, which it could spend on the rest of its public sector stock.
I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should call for the abolition of Scottish Homes. In only two years, it has established itself as a major vehicle for improvement and innovation in Scottish Housing. It has already invested nearly £600 million in Scotland's housing stock and plans over £300 million of expenditure in 1991–92. It is making a vital contribution to tackling housing needs in the areas with the worst problems in Scotland. It is responding to the aspirations of tenants who wish to exercise greater control over their housing through the formation of housing associations and co-operatives.
Scottish Homes' contribution in Glasgow has been considerable. It has given nearly £11 million in grant to housing associations in the Govan area in the past two financial years and expects to spend a further £4·8 million this year. In total, it expects to spend more than £82 million in the Glasgow area this year—an immense sum—yet the hon. Gentleman wishes to deprive his constituents of such support by abolishing Scottish Homes, thus halting projects that are in progress. He would do away with Scottish Homes in spite of the reality—
Mr. Sillars rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No; I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question.
The hon. Gentleman would abolish Scottish Homes despite its great expertise, ability and the know-how which has been built up over the years and which it would be a tragedy to disrupt. The Central Govan and Talbot housing associations are undertaking work, with grants from Scottish Homes. A special needs programme of £1·2 million for mentally handicapped and elderly people in Govan will shortly be completed. With Scottish Homes' assistance, Linthouse housing association will also be converting Elder Cottage hospital in Govan to provide 22 sheltered housing units. In addition, Glasgow district council has come to strategic agreement with Scottish Homes, which will be in the interests of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and of Glasgow as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman appears to believe that writing off capital debt is like waving a magic wand, and that, by doing so, Glasgow's difficulties would be resolved. However, the costs associated with debt write-offs would, in Glasgow, involve expenditure of £976 million. That would have to be raised either through taxation or borrowing. It follows that any decision along those lines would have to be considered most carefully and would, of course, require legislation. We have no such proposals.

387
I do not believe that there is a case for writing off Glasgow's capital debt, and I shall say why. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it amounts on average to £6,700 per house, which is well below the value of the housing stock on the basis of right-to-buy sales, which is about £19,000 per house. There is therefore no evidence that Glasgow's capital debt is excessive in relation to the capital value of the assets with which the debt is associated. The value of right-to-buy sales is about £10,000 per house, which is more than the average debt and, similarly, a rents-to-mortgage sale would produce about £9,000 which is, again, much more than the average debt.
In addition, because of the system of housing support grant through which the Government give assistance to those authorities that need it, there is no possibility of the district council defaulting on its loan payments. The Government provide substantial housing support grant to Glasgow. This year it amounts to £22·7 million, or £160 per council house. That represents 40 per cent. of the Scottish total of housing support grant, compared with Glasgow's share of Scotland's council house stock of less than 20 per cent. Since housing support grant was introduced, Glasgow has received a total of £386 million from the Government. Housing support grant is a deficit subsidy designed to fill the gap between estimated expenditure and estimated income.
The Grieve report also recommended the disposal of empty stock. If Glasgow cannot cope with the empty stock on its own, it should follow up possibilities with Scottish Homes and housing associations. Should vacant stock still be available, it would be possible to involve the private sector to an ever greater extent. I believe that such a policy would undoubtedly succeed.
388
I have listened carefully to the criticisms levelled by the hon. Member for Govan, but his claims are unfounded. This year we have made available more than £100 million to Glasgow district council to spend on its own stock. The council can use that substantial level of resources to tackle condensation and dampness, homelessness or other problems in Govan or elsewhere. It is right that the council should take its own view on priorities. Moreover, the council will benefit from the additional resources that we are making available for homelessness, energy efficiency and the urban partnership.
Resources for investment could be increased if the council were to take a more positive attitude towards the scope for right-to-buy and rents-to-mortgage sales. Its record on those is deplorable.
Scottish Homes has brought additional resources to Scottish housing and it has made a major contribution of £82 million to the Glasgow area—equivalent to literally millions in Govan. The hon. Member for Govan should express gratitude to those at Scottish Homes for working flat out at the sharp end of the housing problem for his constituents.
There is no case for writing off Glasgow's capital debt. The Government are providing more than £22 million in housing support grant to help tenants. We have increased spending on housing in real terms by 17 per cent. since 1979, whereas it fell by 35 per cent. under the previous Labour Government, which the hon. Member for Govan then supported.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT

  Redundancies
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce further legislation to protect employees made redundant by closure of businesses.

  Mr. Forth
  Debts owing to employees whose employers have become insolvent may, within certain limits, be paid by my Department. In the case of statutory redundancy pay, the employee may he paid even where there is no formal insolvency. I have no plans at present for further measures.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new businesses have been created in the past five years as a proportion of the number lost; what were the comparable figures for 1974 to 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Between the end of 1984 and the end of 1989, there were an estimated 1,082,000 new registrations for VAT, 29 per cent. greater than the number of deregistrations. Between the end of 1974 and the end of 1979, there were an estimated 809,000 new registrations for VAT, 12 per cent. greater than the number of deregistrations.

TANSPORT

  Articulated Lorries
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now bring in regulations which forbid the use of articulated lorries built before 1982 which do not have brake variable sensing units fitted on the trailers.

  Mr. Chope
  We are looking at the feasibility of requiring variable sensing units to be fitted to trailers built before 1982. This will involve balancing the technical and cost implications against the likely benefits.

ENVIRONMENT

  Construction Industry
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to assist the construction and building industry.

  Mr. Yeo
  Government policy is to bring inflation under control, to reduce interest rates accordingly and thus to enable the construction industry to take full advantage of market opportunities.
  230
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet representatives of the construction industry to discuss the recession.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Secretary of State and his Ministers are engaged in a continuing round of discussions with representatives of the construction industry.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the research conducted on behalf of his Department on the utility of tradeable permits in pollution control.

  Mr. Baldry
  This research, by the consultants London Economics Ltd., is still continuing.

  Kuwait Oil Fires
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has from the World Meteorological Organisation's global atmosphere watch about(a) pollution in the global atmosphere as a result of Kuwait oil fires and (b) the effects of Kuwait oil fires in (1) western China, (2) the Himalayas and (3) the Indian sub-continent.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Only limited data are available at the World Meteorological Organisation in Geneva from this programme. Very small concentrations of soot particles have been detected in Mauna Loa, Hawaii, but there are no indications of significant atmospheric pollution on a global scale. Information on the specific regions mentioned is not available at present.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Chief Executives
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service (1) how many of the 50 executive agency chief executives are Oxbridge graduates;

  (2) if he will list each executive agency, the chief executive and the subject of first degree possessed by him or her.

  Mr. Renton
  This information is not held centrally.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Goodwin Sands
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much aggregate was dredged from the Goodwin sands last year; and what were the comparable figures for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1990 402,084 tonnes of aggregate was dredged from the Goodwin sands. Comparable information from 1980 is as follows:

  Year

  Quantity dredged

  1980

  Nil

  1981

  Nil

  1982

  Nil

  231

  Year

  Quantity dredged

  1983

  Nil

  1984

  599,200

  1985

  887,856

  1986

  253,361

  1987

  Nil

  1988

  2,716,789

  1989

  2,432,732

  1990

  402,084

  Inland Revenue (Cash Limit)
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any changes are proposed in the cash limit and running cost limit for 1991–92 for the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Maude
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 6 will be reduced by £24,857,000 from £1,568,465,000 to £1,543,608,000. There is no change in the Department's running cost limit. The change in the cash limit arises from an increase in the charges paid by the Department of Social Security to the Inland Revenue in respect of the costs of collecting national insurance contributions.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of the Treasury in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Expenditure on measures to improve energy efficiency are aggregated with maintenance costs and could only be separately identified at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in the Treasury in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Two energy audits have been carried out in the Department in the last five years. The first, in 1987, concentrated on the lighting efficiency of Treasury buildings. Its main recommendations will be taken on board as part of a major rewiring exercise of the building starting in summer 1991. The second is currently being undertaken in the Great George street building, and its findings are not yet available.

DEFENCE

  Fishery Protection Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to order fishery protection vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Fishery protection is undertaken by a variety of ships including mine counter-measures vessels and offshore patrol vessels. We have no current plans to order new vessels specifically for this role, although we plan to place further orders for mine counter-measures vessels. The size and timing of orders has yet to be decided.
  232
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if public notice of a tender for a fishery protection vessel would need to be inserted in the European Community'sOfficial Journal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There is no requirement to publish a public notice of a tender in the European Community'sOfficial Journal for those Royal Navy vessels which perform fishery protection duties.

  Royal Air Force
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) of 17 May,Official Report, column 304, what further changes to the Royal Air Force are planned under "Options for Change".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Air Force will shortly be implementing two further measures foreshadowed in the statement by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on "Options for Change" on 25 July at columns 470–73. First, there will be a small reduction in the number of Nimrod aircraft in service at RAF Kinloss and RAF St. Mawgan, from 1 July 1991. One aircraft will be withdrawn from service at RAF ST. Mawgan, and two from RAF Kinloss.

  Secondly, the Buccaneer operational conversion unit at RAF Lossiemouth will start to disband from 1 October 1991, with residual training requirements met by the Buccaneer squadrons themselves. This is the first step in the programme to replace the Buccaneer force at RAF Lossiemouth with Tornado aircraft equipped with Sea Eagle missiles for the anti-surface warfare role. These changes are not expected to result in any redundancies at the three stations.

  The Gulf (Women)
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women were deployed to the Gulf; and to which units they were attached.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 May 1991]: At the beginning of March 1991, nearly 1,100 service women were deployed in the Gulf. The ships and units in which they served were:

  HMS Battleaxe

  HMS Brilliant

  HMS Hecla

  HMS Herald

  RFA Argus

  HQ 1st Armoured Division and Signal Regiment

  HQ British Forces Middle East

  HQ 1st Armoured Brigade

  2nd Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  40th Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  32nd Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery

  39th Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery

  29th Commando Regiment Royal Artillery

  12th Air Defence Regiment Royal Artillery

  23rd Engineer Regiment

  54th Engineer Support and Ambulance Squadron

  14th Topographical Squadron Royal Engineers

  BFME Postal and Courier Service

  1st Coldstream Guards

  1st Royal Scots

  3rd Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  1st Armoured Division Transport Regiment

  4th Armoured Division Transport Regiment

  27th Regiment Royal Corps of Transport

  1st Armoured Field Ambulance

  233

  5th Armoured Field Ambulance

  24th Field Ambulance Unit

  22nd Field Hospital

  32nd Field Hospital

  33rd Field Hospital

  205th General Hospital

  Medical Surgical Team "A"

  Medical Surgical Team "B"

  3rd Ordnance Battalion Group

  6th Ordnance Battalion Group

  174th Provost Company

  203rd Provost Company

  HQ Force Maintenance Area (Gulf)

  Field Records

  Air HQ Riyadh

  RAF Detachment A1 Jubayl

  RAF Detachment Dhahran

  RAF Detachment Khaledap

  RAF Detachment Muharraq

  RAF Detachment Quayssumah

  RAF Detachment Seeb

  Muharraq War Hospital

PRIME MINISTER

  White Papers (Costs)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of the design, preparation, printing and distribution of the White Papers "Education and Training", Cm. 1536, volumes I and II and "Higher Education", Cm. 1541.

  The Prime Minister
  The total cost of the design and preparation of the White Papers "Education and Training", Cm 1536, volumes I and II, and "Higher Education", Cm 1541, was £51,000. This does not include the costs of printing, publishing and distribution, which are borne by HMSO, and which aims to recover its costs from sales revenue.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of the launch at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre of the White Papers, "Education and Training" and "Higher Education", on 20 May, including the cost of the hire of the centre and other charges.

  The Prime Minister
  The total estimated cost of the launch at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre for the White Papers "Education and Training" and "Higher Education", including the hire of the venue, will not exceed £48,000.

HEALTH

  Cardiac Resuscitation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the general district hospitals and trusts that do not have a training officer for cardiac resuscitation employed to train both nurses and doctors on their staff.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount spent by his Department in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or 234
  computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for whom the contract was carried out.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The estimated expenditure in the financial year 1990–91 on management and computer consultancy projects is 13·8 million. A list of consultancy firms and the projects they carried out in 1990–91 has been placed in the Library. None of the projects was carried out for an executive agency.

  Mental Health Hospitals
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those mental health hospitals which closed in 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Dogs
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been brought in respect of powerful breeds of dog, including rottweilers, pit-bull terriers, the Tosa and dobermans, in respect of powers or offences under(a) section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in respect of a dog owner's recklessness, (b) section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, (c) section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, (d) section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, (e) the Animals Act 1971 and (f) the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 since 1989.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The following information relates to offences in 1989, the latest year for which statistics are available, and covers all types of dog.

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Cautions

  Town Police Clauses Act 1847

  93

  60

  71

  Dogs Act 1871 and Dangerous Dogs Act 1898

  967

  166

  1,112

  Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953

  466

  395

  66

  No statistics are available for civil cases concerning dogs brought under the Animals Act 1971, or for offences specifically relating to attacks involving dogs under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

  Remand
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many convicted criminals are known to have committed additional crimes while on remand pending trial in the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) how many people remanded on bail are known to have committed offences while so remanded, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  I regret that the information requested is not available. However, Home Office
  235
  statistical bulletin 30/90, "Reasons for refusing unconditional bail, January to February 1989", estimates that 19 per cent. of those remanded in custody had previously reoffended on bail. A copy of this bulletin is in the Library.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent attempt by French demonstrators to enter England through the channel tunnel; what measures were taken to resist this incursion; and what measures are to be taken to restrict access to the channel tunnel to authorised persons only.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On the night of 16 May, an organised group of men gained unauthorised access to the channel tunnel in an apparent attempt to walk to the United Kingdom. They turned back at the ventilation fan station, where the way had been blocked by TML, the construction contractors. They used no violence and caused no damage. On leaving the tunnel at the French end, they were interviewed by French police but not detained. The French and United Kingdom authorities were in close contact throughout the incident.

  The access control arrangements for the United Kingdom and French terminals have been approved by the channel tunnel intergovernmental commission as appropriate to the tunnel's current status as a private construction site. All security arrangements relating to the tunnel are subject to the approval of the United Kingdom and French Governments and are kept under review.

  Crime Statistics
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list statistics for each year from 1980 to 1990 showing;(a) the number of persons aged 18 to 25 years convicted of theft, (b) the number of persons aged 16 to 17 years convicted of theft, (c) the number of persons aged 18 to 25 years convicted of soliciting, (d) the number of persons aged 16 to 17 years convicted of soliciting, (e) the number of persons aged 18 to 25 years convicted of begging and (f) the number of persons aged 16 to 17 years convicted of begging.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for the years 1980, 1983, 1986 and 1989 is given in the following table. To produce further information for the other years requested would involve disproportionate cost.

  Number of persons convicted of theft, soliciting and begging by age group for the years 1980, 1983, 1986 and 1989 England and Wales

  Age groups

  1980

  1983

  1986

  1989

  Theft

  16–17

  30,266

  27,721

  22,609

  11,888

  18–25

  70,165

  73,411

  66,648

  49,496

  Soliciting

  16–17

  18

  3

  11

  15

  18–25

  242

  164

  152

  122

  Begging

  16–17

  10

  25

  2

  60

  18–201

  32

  43

  38

  214

  1 For the summary offence of begging it is not required to record the age of the offender if over the age of 21.

  Dogs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of(a) pit bull terriers and (b) rottweilers in Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Estimates have been given to us that there are up to 10,000 pit bull terriers and about 100,000 rottweilers in Great Britain. We have no estimates for Wales.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Lords Amendments
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to conduct the trial to cover the proposals in the second report of the Procedure Committee for Session 1990–91 to deal with the documents required for Commons consideration of amendments from the Lords to Bills when they are considered by the House.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Following the successful completion of a non-operational trial by the Public Bill Office, I intend to initiate an operational trial using the Criminal Justice Bill when it returns from the Lords. The arrangements involve the production of a conflated paper containing Lords amendments and Commons notices on white paper on the day of consideration within the criteria and cut-off time set out in paragraphs 26 and 28 to 32 of the report. I hope that all Members will co-operate in this trial and that they will pass their comments to the Public Bill Office, so that a full assessment of the trial may be made.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Research Councils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list, for each research council, for the latest available year(a) the amount of money allocated to each research council and spent in Wales and (b) the proportion of public money allocated to each research council that was spent in Wales.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In 1990–91, the research council's expenditure in Wales from the science budget and the proportion as a percentage of the total were as follows:

  Expenditure in Wales derived from the science budget(£ million)

  Percentage of science budget to council

  AFRC

  2·6

  2·9

  ESRC

  0·6

  1·6

  MRC1

  1·1

  0·6

  NERC

  10·9

  8·1

  SERC

  6·7

  1·5

  1 1989–90 figures.

  Details of research council expenditure in Wales from all sources of public money are not available.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has given any indication to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils of his view of the future and the future use of its flexibility margin.
  237
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced to the House on 22 May 1991 at column 500 his acceptance of the ABRC's advice on the allocation of the flexibility margin.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received any representations on the ethical standards of the Science and Engineering Research Council.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations about the review by the Science and Engineering Research Council of its forward programme. I am not aware of any which refer to the council's ethical standards.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he plans to review the future of the Science and Engineering Research Council.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to review the future of the Science and Engineering Research Council.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to lay before the House the new student loans regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1991 were laid today to come into force on 1 August. They are modelled closely on the current regulations. They employ the new loan rates announced on 22 May at columns 499–500 and include improvements introduced in the light of experience over the past year. The regulations will ensure that the scheme continues to operate efficiently and to the advantage of all borrowers.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the individual appointments excluding casual vacancies he is scheduled to make to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992, indicating in each case the title of the post, the salary if any and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to the reply, 7 May 1991, column 392–396]: Contrary to the information given in my earlier answer, the chairman of the National Council for Educational Technology is unpaid. Eight, rather than nine, new appointments were made in 1991.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industrial Strategy
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's industrial strategy.

  Mr. Lilley
  I gave a comprehensive statement of the Government's industrial policy in my speech to the Institute of Directors in Birmingham on 30 April. A copy of the speech has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Cammell Laird
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken or plans to take to avert the closure of Cammell Laird shipyard.

  Mr. Leigh
  The future of Cammell Laird is a matter For the commercial judgment of VSEL, its parent company. It is actively seeking a buyer for the yard and the Government will continue to do all they can to assist VSEL's efforts.

  GATT
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations.

  Mr. Lilley
  A successful conclusion to the GATT Uruguay round negotiations remains a top priority for the United Kingdom. Now that the United States Administration has obtained an extension of its fast-track negotiating mandate, we hope that all parties will redouble their efforts to bring the talks to a successful conclusion no later than the end of the year.

  Recession
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet representatives of the north-west regional Confederation of British Industry to discuss the recession in industry.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have no present plans to meet representatives of the NW regional CBI, although my officials do so regularly. I met the presidential committee of the CBI on 24 April and the CBI's national president on 15 May.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received from British industry about the recession.

  Mr. Lilley
  I continue to receive representations from British industry supporting the Government's determination to defeat inflation, thereby creating the conditions for a resumption of sustainable economic growth.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any proposals to privatise further industries.

  Mr. Redwood
  Bills before Parliament will enable privatisation of the British Technology Group and the Insurance Services business of the ECGD. I intend to privatise the National Engineering Laboratory, but have set no timetable.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the number of companies that have been returned to the private sector since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  The privatisations undertaken by my Department were listed in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) on 20 December 1990 at column 340.

  Car Industry
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on prospects for the car industry.

  Mr. Leigh
  The current success in export markets has enabled the United Kingdom car industry to maintain production despite the downturn in the domestic market. Medium and long-term prospects for the United Kingdom car industry are excellent, with annual production likely to reach 2 million units by the mid to late 1990s.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the increase in British car production that is expected to follow the investments being made in this country by Japanese car companies.

  Mr. Leigh
  The investment projects currently being undertaken in the United Kingdom by Nissan, Toyota and Honda will bring at least 500,000 units of new production capacity to the United Kingdom by the mid to late 1990s.

  Trading Standards
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the Local Authorities Committee on Trading Standards to discuss consumer contracts.

  Mr. Leigh
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have current plans to meet with the Local Authorities Committee on Trading Standards.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the Local Authorities Committee on Trading Standards to discuss product safety.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have met trading standards officers and members of their representative organisations on several occasions at which product safety was one of the issues discussed. Also, officials of my Department have regular contact with the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards Officers to discuss product safety.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the Local Authorities Committee on Trading Standards to discuss product safety.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have met trading standards officers and members of their representative organisations on several occasions at which product safety was one of the issues discussed. Also, officials of my Department have regular contact with the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards and individual trading standards officers to discuss product safety.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the level of inward investment into Cumbria.

  Mr. Leigh
  In recent years, the main source of inward investment into Cumbria has been through developments by existing companies in the area. However, in conjunction with INWARD, the North West regional 240
  development organisation, we are working closely with local agencies to ensure that Cumbria's attractions are presented effectively to new potential inward investors.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Britain's recent record in attracting inward investment from the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Leigh
  According to the Federal Ministry of Economics in Bonn, German direct investment in the United Kingdom at the end of 1989 totalled DM 16·5 billion, an increase of 320 per cent. since 1983. Despite growing international competition, particularly from the former GDR, outward investment figures for the first six months of last year published by the Institut de deutschen Wirtschaft indicate that 1990 will be a record year for the United Kingdom in attracting investment from Germany.

  Square D
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the takeover of Square D by the French firm Schneider.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's main consideration in deciding whether or not to refer a merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation remains its effect on competition as it affects the United Kingdom consumer. In addition, as my right hon. Friend announced on 26 July 1990, in deciding whether to make such a reference he will in future pay particularly close attention to the degree of state control, if any, of the acquiring company. It would not be appropriate to comment further on the acquisition by Schneider SA of the Square D company in advance of my right hon. Friend's announcement of his decision on whether to refer this merger to the Commission or not. My right hon. Friend will take all relevant considerations into account when reaching his decision.

  Aerospace
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the major companies in the aerospace industry about current problems facing the industry.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Secretary of State met British Aerospace in December and Rolls-Royce in March.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to boost manufacturing output.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Manufacturing output will be helped by our policies of fostering and extending the competitive environment, encouraging innovation and controlling inflation.

  Parcels Service
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the privatisation of Royal Mail Parcels and Operation Danill.

  Mr. Leigh
  We have no present plans to privatise Royal Mail Parcelforce.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total amount spent by his Department in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for whom the contract was carried out.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department's expenditure on consultants engaged in the financial year 1990–91 is estimated to be £5,576,000 of which £3,492,000 is for consultancy contracts excluding hardware and software purchases. These figures do not include expenditure by DTI executive agencies, information on which is not held centrally. The chief executives of the agencies have been asked to reply direct to the hon. Gentleman with the relevant information. Copies of their answers will be placed in the House of Commons Library. The following lists the management or computer consultancy contracts awarded for the financial year 1990–91:

  Firm

  Subject of Assignment

  A T and T Islet Ltd

  Inside UK Enterprise

  Derwent Business Systems

  Aircraft engines emissions study

  General technology systems limited

  Support to BNSC limited

  Communications Studies and Planning Limited

  BNSC directory of UK space capabilities '91

  Business Briefings Limited

  Electronic component seminar

  Touche Ross

  Support DTI in international environmental negotiations study

  PA Consulting Group

  Study of washing machines: Drafting spec for ECO labelling

  Children's Research Unit

  Children and Fireworks research

  Association for Consumer research

  Survey on trader awareness of misleading prices regime

  CIMTECH

  Companies House imaging project

  Price Waterhouse

  Development of Companies House's commercial accounting systems

  NERA

  Enquiry into standards of cross media promotion

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloittes

  Local Government regulation of business

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloittes

  Revision of managing into the 90s newsletter

  Text Matters

  Managing into the 90s: Recasting of purchasing and supply booklets

  PA Consulting

  Successful Purchaser/Suppliers relationships studies portfolio

  Segal Quince Wickstead

  Integrated graduate degree pilot study

  BHRA

  New approach study collaborative technology

  ACWI

  Woodworking machinery manufacturing industry

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Financial viability of the management charter initiative

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Engineering and technology programme pilot study

  Eadie Baxter

  Evaluation of DTI support on aeroengine noise reduction research

  242

  Grant Thornton

  Evaluation of outward mission and overseas seminar scheme

  Segal Quince and Wickstead

  Single market campaign: interim evaluation

  Oxford Economic Forecasting

  Estimating import equations for the IMS model

  Oxford Economic Research Associates Limited

  Sub-contracting study

  Segal Quince Wickstead

  Regional enterprise grants evaluation

  St. John's Innovation Centre Ltd.

  Managing into the 90s programme evaluation

  Aspects International

  Waste prevention demonstration chart

  London Business School

  Large trade publication consultancy study

  Tillinghast

  Implementation of business review and information

  Ernst and Young

  Training needs analysis for insurance division

  P-E International

  Consultant for data communications network audit

  Dataquest Europe Limited

  Electronics components—market structure

  Ernst and Young

  Electronics components purchasing policies

  Ernst and Young

  Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association

  Alan Fox Project Development

  Consultancy support to local organisations (St. Mary's)

  Alan Fox Project Development

  Consultancy support to local organisations (Weavers)

  Alan Fox Project Development

  Consultancy support to local organisations (Oxford house)

  Compass Partnership

  Consultancy support to local organisations (St. Hilda's)

  Compass Partnership

  Consultancy support to local organisations (Byl)

  MBM Consulting

  Consultancy support to local organisations (Language Line)

  Community Economy

  Consultancy support to local organisations (Bridge project)

  Community Economy

  Consultancy support to local organisations (East London Small Business Centre)

  D. Howard Green and Associates

  Task force supply of business development finance study

  Manchester Polytechnic Centre for Employment Research

  Skill and labour market survey

  Ernst and Young

  Business director for Yorkshire and Humberside

  Ernst and Young

  Development Association Investment in the UK market survey 1990–91

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloittes

  Research into knock-on effects of inward investment

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Monitoring Cornish tin mines carnon

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  English unit—future watch

  Pieda

  England fact file

  KMPG Peat Marwick McLintock

  Perception of England

  Graham Bannock and Partners

  Small firms affected by the single market

  Price Waterhouse

  Introduction of a quality system to meet BS5750

  IFS (Conferences) Ltd.

  Inside United Kingdom enterprise

  Welding Institute

  Eureka awareness in adhesive field

  Hay Management Consultants

  Communications audit within the insolvency service

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloittee

  Efficiency/effectiveness of proposed accounting systems

  Tillinghast

  Insurance division IT strategy study

  243

  National Computing Centre (NCC)

  Key international OSI standards

  Data Dictionary Systems Limited

  International standards for data dictionaries

  J. Westgate (Consultants) Limited

  Development of management standards

  SEMA Group UK Limited

  OSI upper layer standards development

  Chris Makemson Consultants Limited

  Development of virtual terminal standards

  SEMA Group plc

  OSI management standards development

  T. William Associates Limited

  Reference model of data management

  Medical Technology Consultants Europe Limited

  United Kingdom testing and certification requirements for medical devices

  PSC International Limited

  Production of practical and technical guides

  Security and Standards Consultancy Limited

  EDI messaging security standards

  STC Technology

  20th European solid state research—ESSDERC '90

  P-Four Consultancy Ltd.

  Open systems technology transfer module (OSTT)

  Architecture Projects Management (APM) Ltd

  ODP workshops and publications

  British Informatics Society Ltd

  Tickit recommendations: Advice and assistance

  Eosys Ltd

  OSI Implementor group secretariat work

  National Computing Centre

  Appraisal and monitoring of eureka project

  National Computing Centre

  Open systems standards development and support programmes

  I William Olle Associates

  Administration of data base standards

  Technology Appraisals Ltd

  Open systems wall chart: Production and distribution

  Technology Appraisals Ltd

  Production of OSI products

  SD-Scicon UK Limited

  Expert systems case studies and guidelines programme

  Reynolds and Johnson Limited

  OSTT case studies/case analyses

  Mackintosh Generics Limited

  Eureka feasibility study on flat panel displays

  Michael Shortland Associates

  Microelectronic devices: Major markets and products

  KPMG Peat Marwick Mclintock

  Open distributed processing

  BIS Mackintosh Limited

  Customised version of European GAAS capability study

  Michael Shortland Associates

  HCI awareness programme: Programme launch

  Systems Concepts

  HCI programme: Reference booklets standards

  Design Council

  HCI programme: Reference booklets—consultants

  R M Consulting

  HCI programme: Writing of reference booklets—tools

  Logica Space and Defence Systems Limited

  Evaluation training course at NPL

  DNA Consultancy Services

  Advanced sensors technology programme evaluation

  Rutherford Appleton laboratory

  High performance interfaces/protocols

  P-Four

  HCI programme: Case studies

  KPMG Peat Marwick Mclintock

  Developing brochure material

  Logica Limited

  Eureka collaborative R and D meeting: Paris

  SEMA Group Systems Limited

  Network support for industrial researchers

  AEA Industrial Technology

  Network management standards development

  Touche Ross

  Speech and natural language consultancy

  BIS Mackintosh Limited

  The technical and commer companies

  244

  Michael Shortland Associates

  HCI awareness programme: All flyer and information pack

  ADA Language UK Limited

  Contribution to ADA conference '90

  St. John's Innovation Centre

  OSTT: Monitoring and evaluation

  Grant Thornton

  Working out a computer strategy

  Eosys Limited

  OSI Implementor groups secretariat

  British Telecom

  Assessment of AERE standards work for OSI management

  Reigate manual writers

  Eureka project EU130 consultancy study

  Salford Software Services

  OSI directory services

  Dataquest Europe Limited

  Publication of the Electronics components study

  Dataquest Europe Limited

  Analyses of the electronic components database

  Tallis Consultancy

  Telecommunications study

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Internal scrutiny of FBP: Survey of chambers of commerce trade association etc.

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Information system strategy study for ITD

  Metron Technology

  Plexus (X2S/Oslan) training/evaluation

  BIS Applied Systems

  Regional offices information strategy study

  Julia Schofield Consultants Limited

  Evaluation of voice activated technology

  Electronic Facilities Design

  Regional offices information systems strategy study

  Computer Sciences Company

  SAMIS requirement review

  BIS Applied Systems

  Office systems strategy study

  EOSYS Limited

  Network consultancy for Kingsgate House

  Task Force Pro Libra

  Classification of revised skills and services

  Quo-Tec Limited

  Materials Technology in the United Kingdom (Eureka promotion)

  Welding Institute

  Surface engineering United Kingdom/Finland

  Intelligent Applications Limited

  Advance tech/support of maintenance for machine tools

  P-E International

  Information systems strategy study for manufacturing technology (MT) division

  W S Atkins

  Eureka: Energy efficiency in electrical machines

  Quo-Tec Ltd.

  Link programme: high temperature-high performance materials

  Quatex-consultancy

  UK participants of a Eureka Anglo-Spanish event

  ISVR Consultancy Services

  Study on new EC noise directives

  British Textile Technology Group

  Critique of garment colouration study

  BMT Defence Services Limited

  Christchurch Bay tower maintenance

  Advanced Robotics Research Limited

  Advanced robotics safety seminar

  Optimat Limited

  Materials technology audit in Scotland

  Douglas Westwood Associates

  DTI-Department of Energy study: R and D in subsea electronics

  PERA

  Overseas practice in the coordination of advanced manufacturing technology

  IT Focus

  Monograph on the export CIM-OSA

  Metra Martech Limited

  New products study MT division

  Association of Chamber of Commerce

  Study on setting up Chambernet

  245

  Leeds University Industrial Services Ltd.

  Manufacturing message service users guide

  P-E International

  Manufacturing intelligence programme information

  Strategic Projects Group

  SPG matrix modelling process to UK textile machinery

  Manchester University Prest

  Microwave aspects of new NMS programme for electrical science

  Scientific Generics Limited

  Study the validity of analytical measurement

  PERA

  AMT implementations study

  La Creative

  Literature and panels for ceramic industry seminar

  Promotor International

  Cermaics industry seminar telecheck mailing

  Promotor International

  Ceramics industry seminar planning/operation

  AT and T Istel Industry Systems

  Market assessment on open systems in manufacturing

  Crown Business Communications

  Strategy roadshow launch

  Meeting Deadlines Limited

  Improving the maintenance of machine tools

  ERA Technology

  Materials opportunity review

  Robert Keown Associates

  Surface engineering in manufacturing industry

  BMT Defence Services Limited

  Christchurch Bay Tower disposal

  ERA Technology

  Traceable calibrations—electromagnetic compatability directive

  Scientific Generics Limited

  The NMS for length

  Segal Quince Wicksteed Limited

  Performance of north west manufacturing industry

  City and Corporate Counsel Limited

  Opportunity Japan Campaign: Phase 3 survey

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  Overseas trade information systems study (OTISS)

  Palmlave Limited

  Provide training in the use of botis systems and export data branch

  Commercial Transfer Limited

  Removal of patent office stationery store to Wales

  Almondhall

  IT project planner

  Business Focus

  Market analysis survey—pats

  Price Waterhouse

  Accountancy consultancy for the patent office

  Transmark Worldwide

  Solid state interlocking railway signalling system study

  Ralph H. Pickering Associates

  Supplement skill resources of PEP4C

  Seagull Safety Limited

  Market targetting consultancy

  Glyced Project Management Limited

  Hong Kong port/airport development scheme (PADS)

  W S Atkins International

  Land reclamation feasibility study—Moscow

  Industrial Training Services Limited

  Training and development review within DTI

  Industrial Training Services Limited

  Review of training at NEL

  Industrial Training Services Limited

  Competent approach to performance

  Northern Race Training Unit

  Equal opportunities training

  British Telecom International

  Marine radio equipment

  Logica

  Satcos ADP software maintenance

  Smith Associates Limited

  Modelling of very large antennas phase 1

  Radio Frequency Investigation Limited

  IDMA transmission structures interfering potential

  Roke Manor Research

  Mobile system evaluation development project

  British Aerospace (Space Systems)

  Satellite HDTV at 25 GHZ study

  Satconsult Limited

  Satellite on board processing study

  Regis Systems Limited

  Slightly inclined GEO stationary orbits (SIGO)

  246

  Microwave and Antenna Systems

  Harmonic performance of citizen's band antennas

  Satconsult Limited

  Spectral efficency of code division multiple access techniques

  Regis Systems Limited

  Very small aperture antennas Phase II study

  Regis Systems Limited

  Inter-satellite links study

  PA Consulting Group

  Visiting engineers scheme

  Water Research Centre

  Environment innovation programme

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  Career patterns and progress of former teaching company associates

  Segal Quince Wicksteed

  Link review and analysis of procedures

  Leadenhall Associates

  EUREKA—Famos workshops in Portugal and Norway

  Robert Keown Associates

  Surface engineering assignment

  Manchester University Prest

  Advertisements as indicators

  David Rigby Associates

  Garment colouration and consumer choice

  Intermatrix Limited

  Signposting Japanese technology

  Knowledge Research

  DTI working party on the film industry

  National Computing Centre Limited

  Fintech consultancy 25 June 1990

  Fair Trading
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in any future restatement of his Department's objectives, he will include a statement of his policy to work for fair trading conditions world wide and for strengthened General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade rules and disciplines, as well as for trade liberalisation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently published revised departmental objectives. These include the objective of working for trade liberalisation worldwide. The Government's top priority in this field at present is the early successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round of trade negotiations. This will produce a strengthened framework of rules and disciplines for international trade and fairer and more open trading conditions for all participants.

  Textiles
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been received from the United Kingdom textile and clothing industries about subsidies by the French Government to the VEV group of textile companies; and if he will press the European Commission to investigate subsidies of French textile companies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have received representations about these alleged subsidies from representatives of the industry. The European Commission has been made aware of the United Kingdom's interest in seeing this matter properly investigated.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the textile and clothing industry to discuss the effect of the recession.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have no present plans to do so.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to improve the
  247
  speed of action possible by trading standards officers in banning the sale of imported children's clothing which proves on testing to be a fire hazard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Trading standards officers already have powers under section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to issue suspension notices immediately prohibiting for up to six months the supply of goods where they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they contravene any safety provision.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current status of the multi-fibre arrangement, the Government's position on it, and other measures that the Government are taking to protect the British textiles industry from unfair competition.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) on 4 June at column 170. The question of unfair competition is being addressed in the substantive textiles negotiations.

  Debt Collecting Agencies
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what obligations debt collecting agencies are under to ensure that the information upon which they act is accurate and true; and what responsibilities are held by companies employing debt collecting agencies on their behalf.

  Mr. Leigh
  Debt collecting is a licenseable activity under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The licensing system is administered by the Director General of Fair Trading and he has the power to refuse or revoke a licence if he believes that a business is not fit to engage in the activities covered by the licence. In reaching his decision, he will take account of any business practices which appear to him to be deceitful or oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper, whether unlawful or not. I will ask the director general to write to the hon. Member.

  EC Funding (Cleveland)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which projects involving European Community funding in the Cleveland county area since 1987 have involved additionality costs to the United Kingdom Exchequer.

  Mr. Leigh
  In setting the Government's public expenditure programmes, account is taken of expected receipts from the European Community. This enables the programmes to be larger than they otherwise would be.

  London Underground Ltd.
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on London Underground Ltd. will be published.

  Mr. Lilley
  The report is published today. The Commission were asked to conduct a wide ranging inquiry into the efficiency and costs of and the service provided by London Underground Ltd. The Commission recognizes 248
  that there are serious constraints on the ability of London Underground to improve efficiency and quality of service. The underground is an old system, which suffers from many years of neglect of its basic infrastructure. The Commission gives due credit to London Underground management for achievements in many areas, notably in the field of safety. However, they conclude that the efficiency with which London Underground uses its present resources still leaves much to be desired.

  The report concludes that there is significant scope for improving efficiency and reducing costs, without affecting safety or service standards. The Commission recognises the need for LUL to have a stable investment programme funded partly by the Government and partly by improvements in efficiency but also takes the view that there will have to be an enhanced contribution from real increases in fares. They recognise there has been substantial investment in recent years.

  Reflecting the breadth of the inquiry, the Commission has made over 100 recommendations aimed at assisting LUL to improve its performance, giving particular priority collectively to six matters: control of cash against the external financing limit set by the Government management information systems; utilisation of manpower; fares policy and levels; management of investment programme and projects; and renewal and maintenance of the network. In these and other areas, the Commission has set target dates for the implementation of their recommendations.

  LUL will be producing a preliminary response to the Commission's findings within three to four months, in the light of which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Thirty-one members of staff are designated energy managers as part of their duties. The Department devoted approximately four man years to energy mangement in 1990–91.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Until recently, responsibility for such investment has been divided between the Property Services Agency and the Department, with the result that this information for past years could only be assembled at disproportionate cost. In 1989–90, £236,000 (£221,000 in 1990–91 terms) was spent on the installation and replacement of equipment and fabric in projects which had a significant energy saving content in their specification. Figures have not yet been fully compiled for 1990–91 but will be rather higher.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give for each available year from 1978, the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the
  249
  figures in (a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: I am sorry that information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: One full energy audit has recently been carried out which indicated potential saving of over £20,000 a year for a capital outlay of £45,000. Measures are in hand to implement the recommendations.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the Christmas bonus payable to senior citizens in 1972 in(a) cash terms and (b) at 1991 prices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Christmas bonus payable to senior citizens in 1972 in cash terms was £10, and which at April 1991 prices would be worth £59·17. The cost at this rate would be about £700 million.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the total staff of the Contributions Agency are on secondment from Government Departments.

  Mr. Jack
  The Contributions Agency, along with other DSS executive agencies, is a part of the DSS. Accordingly it is staffed by departmental civil servants.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount spent by his Department in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for whom the contract was carried out.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total expenditure on management and computer consultancy contracts in the financial year 1990–91, excluding software and hardware purchases, is £69·75 million.

  Details of the individual contracts awarded in the 1990–91 financial year are given in the table.

  Consultancy firm

  Subject and agency

  Addenbrookes hospital, Cambridge

  HQ Relocation

  Admiral Management Services Ltd.

  Quality Management System Pilot Project—Agency ITSA

  ACE Datasystems Ltd.

  Staff Suggestions Unit Consultancy

  250

  Andersen Consulting

  Employment Services—Agency ITSA

  Andersen Consulting

  Common Benefit Architecture—Agency ITSA

  Andersen Consulting

  Training Project—Agency ITSA

  Andersen Consulting

  Contributions Unit Development

  Anita Ram

  Selected International Comparisons of Household Incomes

  Applied Systems Engineering

  Single Terminal Access Project Productisation—Agency ITSA

  Applied Systems Engineering

  Virtual Machine Environment—Auditor Production Development—Agency ITSA

  Arthur D. Allwright Associates

  Purchasing Consultancy

  Baddeley Associates Ltd.

  Communicating the Operational Strategy (Phase I)

  Baddeley Associates Ltd.

  Communicating the Operational Strategy (Phase II)

  Baddeley Associates Ltd.

  Code and Instruction Review

  Baddeley Associates Ltd.

  Social Fund Communications

  Baddeley Associates Ltd.

  Communication Project for Benefits Agency (BAMT)

  Baddeley Associates Ltd.

  Communication Skills Course for Service Development Teams

  Baddeley Associates Ltd.

  Working With Small Groups Workshop Project

  Baddeley Associates Ltd.

  Headquarters Review Team—Consultancy Support

  Ben Williams Consultants

  Customer Service Training—Agency ITSA

  Cavendish Tricorne

  Local Factors Model

  Cavendish Tricorne

  Local Pay Additions

  Cavendish Tricorne

  Performance Related Pay

  Cavendish Tricorne

  Overbearing Model

  Cavendish Tricorne

  Integrated Pay and Personnel Project

  Cavendish Tricorne

  War Pensions

  Cavendish Tricorne

  Contributions Unit Development (Human Resource Planning)

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  Departmental Information Systems Strategy Scoping Study

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  Financial Information Strategy Project (Annual Review)

  Childcare

  Childcare Arrangements at DSS Longbenton

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Agencies Systems Planning

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Training Seminar for Leaders

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Creation of the Purchasing and Supply Manual

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Procurement Management Information System

  Computer Sciences Company Ltd.

  ITSA Security Training—Agency ITSA

  Computer Sciences Company Ltd.

  ITSA Security—Developments Systems and Infrastructure Projects—Agency ITSA

  Computer Sciences Company Ltd.

  Security Standards Software Support—Agency ITSA

  Computer Sciences Company Ltd.

  Support for Single Terminal Access Project

  Computer Sciences Company Ltd.

  Terminal Management System Development—Agency ITSA

  Comshare Limited

  Executive Information System—Software Support

  Crantex Limited

  Emergency Support for Infrastructure Support and Design Group—Agency ITSA

  Crantex Limited

  Health Service On-Line Project—Agency ITSA

  251

  Dameimage Limited

  Analytical Services Statistical Information System (Assist) Project Audit

  Dameimage Limited

  Assist Project—User Assurance Co-ordinator

  Dameimage Limited

  Assist Project—Technical Assurance Co-ordinator

  Daniel Doherty Associates

  Gender discrimination project

  David Sheppard and Associates

  Contributions unit agency launch project

  DEGW Limited

  Space standards consultancy

  DPS Consultancy Limited

  Retirement counselling courses

  Dun and Bradstreet Software Services

  Introduction of accountancy framework system—Agency ITSA

  Dun and Bradstreet International

  Purchasing consultancy

  Easams Limited

  Delivery of system to receipt, record and account for valuables—Agency ITSA

  Easams Limited

  Support for strategy operations architecture project

  Electronic Data Systems Ltd.

  Writing procedures for project control services—Agency ITSA

  Enator

  Integrated complementing system

  Enator

  Integrated monitoring system

  Enator

  Performance integrated monitoring for managers system

  Enator

  OPSTRAT implementation

  Equalities Associates

  Equal opportunities seminars (Central)

  Equalities Associates

  Equal opportunities seminars (Midlands region)

  Ernst and Young

  Integrated complementing system

  Ernst and Young

  Integrated complementing system—further work

  Ernst and Young

  Integrated complementing system development

  Ernst and Young

  Departmental information systems strategy scoping study (headquarters units)

  Ernst and Young

  Departmental information systems strategy impact analysis

  Ernst and Young

  Self investment by pensions schemes

  Facilita Software Development Limited

  Integrated terminal test system—Agency ITSA

  Furniture Industry Research Association

  Purchasing consultancy (furniture research)

  Hadley Hunter

  Overpayments Recovery

  Hadley Hunter

  Lone Parent Support

  Handley Walker

  Post Office Counters—Fee Negotiations

  Handley Walker

  Purchasing of Welfare Milk

  Hoskyns Group Plc

  Child Support Agency—Project Managers—Agency ITSA Workbench

  Hoskyns Group Plc

  Contingency Planning—Agency ITSA

  Hoskyns Group Plc

  Integrated Personnel and Payroll Project—Agency ITSA

  Hoskyns Group Plc

  Viability of the Mailsort System—Agency ITSA

  HMG Consulting Limited

  Departmental Management Board Reporting System

  HMG Consulting Limited

  Executive Information Systems—Agency ITSA

  Industrial Motivations Ltd

  Make a Difference Campaign

  I-Net Communications Limited

  Review of Strategy Data Communications—Agency ITSA Network

  International Computers Limited (UK)

  Adjudication Support Prototype—Agency ITSA

  252

  INLI—Institute for a New Leadership Initiative

  Equal Opportunities Training Development

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  Manpower Planning Workshop

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  Manpower Planning Project

  Kentec Mailing Consultants

  Mailing Consultancy

  Level-7 Limited

  Naming and Addressing Requirements for—Agency ITSA the Single Terminal Access Project

  Level-7 Limited

  X-400 Project—Agency ITSA

  Lloyd Northover

  Corporate Image for DSS Property

  Logica UK Ltd

  Integrated Monitoring System

  Logica UK Ltd

  Integrated Monitoring System (For Integrated Complementing System)

  London Economics

  Self Investment by Pensions Schemes

  Mass Observation

  Relocation Assessment

  Market and Opinion Research International

  HQ Relocation Project

  Meena Goyal

  Housing and Community Charge Benefits Project Work

  MFT Computers Systems Ltd.

  Business Unit Information Centre Project—Agency ITSA

  Mr. J. M. Bankier

  Study on Whole Person Concept

  Mr. G. Beaven

  Non-Executive Director of Management Board

  Mr. M. Lee

  Principles of Pension Trusteeship

  Mr. J. Mesher

  Statement on the Principles of Trusteeship

  Mr. N. Parry

  HQ Relocation Project

  Mr. M. Tyler

  Integrated Complementing System

  Nationwide Anglia Relocation

  Headquarters Relocation Projects Relocation Presentation at OCAO

  Neville R. H. Way, Procurement and Supply Consultant

  Review of the Purchasing and Supply Manual and Training Needs Analysis

  PA Consulting Group

  Rewards Strategy—Agency ITSA

  PA Consulting Group

  Feasibility Study into the Computer System for the Proposed Child Support Agency—Agency ITSA

  PA Consulting Group

  Child Support Agency— Planning Support to User Teams—Agency ITSA

  PA Consulting Group

  Review and Development of Standards in ITSA Security —Agency ITSA

  PA Consulting Group

  Enhancement of the MMD—BMD Database (Nottingham Staff Resource Unit)

  PA Consulting Group

  Management Reviews

  PA Consulting Group

  Review of the DSS Central Office Management

  Pathfinder

  Develop and Assist in the Implementation of IT Security in the Departmental Network Systems—Agency ITSA

  Pathfinder

  ITSA Security—PC Security Audit—Agency ITSA

  253

  P-E Inbucon

  Survey of Local Authorities—Follow up to the Community Charge Benefit Monitoring Exercise

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Contributions Unit Development (Customer Survey—Employers)

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Counselling for Staff Leaving under the Voluntary Redundancy Scheme (Outplacement Scheme)

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Head of Training for the Benefits Agency (Selection and Recruitment)

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Debt Recovery Monitoring System

  Perspective Technica

  Quality Management Systems—Agency ITSA

  Peter Hyde Management and Training Consultant

  Benefits Agency Planning Seminar

  Porter Gittins Limited

  Child Care Project for DSS in Coventry

  Praxis Systems Plc

  Integrated Terminal Test System Support and Maintenance—Agency ITSA

  Price Waterhouse

  Administrative Resource Management System (Unit Costs and Budgeting)

  Price Waterhouse

  Integrated Complementing System (Development)

  Price Waterhouse

  Contributions Unit Development (Human Resources Personnel Strategy Project)

  Price Waterhouse

  Research into Costs in Residential Care and Nursing Homes

  Price Waterhouse

  Selection of Recruitment of Benefit Agency Finance Director

  Price Waterhouse

  Departmental Management Board Reporting System

  Price Waterhouse

  Executive Information System Feasibility Study

  Price Waterhouse

  Public Expenditure Survey Forecasting—Agency ITSA

  Price Waterhouse

  Review of Manpower Forecasting System—Agency ITSA

  Professor Steven Haberman

  Self Investment by Pensions Schemes

  Property Holdings

  HQ Relocation Project

  Protocol International

  Customer Services Section User Liaison—Agency ITSA

  Public Arts

  HQ Relocation Project

  Purchasing Index (UK) Ltd

  Purchasing Consultancy

  Research Support and Marketing

  Contract Data Preparation

  Robin Verney Associates Ltd

  Telecommunications Training—Agency ITSA

  SAS Software Limited

  Support for Integrated Database Model

  SCOPEC International

  Enhancements to the Resource Management Systems—Agency ITSA

  SEMA Group

  Administrative Resource Management Systems—Agency ITSA

  SEMA Group

  Development of Local Office Project Social Fund Computer System—Agency ITSA

  SEMA Group

  Feasibility Study into the Future Processing of Social Fund Claims—Agency ITSA

  SEMA Group

  Local Office Project—Social Fund Full Study—Agency ITSA

  254

  SEMA Group

  Local Office Micro Project—Social Fund—Agency ITSA

  SEMA Group

  Social Fund: IT User Development

  SEMA Group

  Study on Computer Development of North Fylde Central Office Future Organisation

  SEMA Group

  Social Fund Support

  SERCO Limited

  Purchasing Consultancy

  SIA Ltd.

  Evaluation of Computer Aided Personal Interviewing

  Stuart McKeckie Limited

  Service Development Team (Southern Territories)

  Symonds Facilities Management Plc

  Headquarters Relocation Projects (Facilities Management)

  Telecommuting Management Consultants

  Telecommuting Scoping Study—Agency ITSA

  Telecomputing Plc

  National Health Service Superannuation

  The Harry Mitchell College

  Administrative Resource Management System (Work Measurement Pilot Exercise)

  The Pre-Retirement Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

  Introduction to Pre-Retirement Education

  TOP-IX Ltd.

  Administrative Resource Management System (Work Measurement Pilot Exercise)

  Touche Ross

  Feasibility Study into Hardware and Software Requirements for the Strategy Operations Architecture Project—Agency ITSA

  Touche Ross

  Lone Parent Study and Survey

  Touche Ross

  Lone Parenthood Consultancy

  Touche Ross

  War Pensions

  Touche Ross

  Administrative Resource Management System (Complementing)

  Touche Ross

  Integrated Complementing System (Maintenance)

  Touche Ross

  Management and Finance Information Systems for the Benefits Agency

  Touche Ross

  Management and Finance Information Systems for the Contributions Unit

  Touche Ross

  Asset Management in DSS

  Touche Ross

  Performance Indicators for Resettlement Units—Agency RA

  Triad Special Systems Ltd.

  Quality Assurance Package

  Trident Quest Pty

  Combined Services Architecture—Agency ITSA

  Tri-Globe Communications Ltd.

  Development of Network Operations Control Section—Agency ITSA

  Ulec Services Limited

  Clarke House Building Management and Maintenance—Agency ITSA

  University College London

  Psychologist for the Forms Design Unit

  Warwick University

  National Insurance Contributions Yield

  Whitegates Estate Agents

  Headquarters Relocation Projects

  World Systems plc

  Feasibility Study into the DRS 6000 Report Produced by ITSA-Procurement—Agency ITSA

  World Systems plc

  DRS 6000 Development—Agency ITSA

  WS Atkins

  Provision of Telecoms within DSS Headquarters—Agency ITSA

  WS Atkins

  Quality Management Group Support—Agency ITSA

  255
  Where no Executive Agency is shown, the consultancy work was undertaken for sections of the Department of Social Security which had not attained Agency status by the end of the period in question.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Royal Victoria Hospital
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have taken place with trades unions about the status of the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast.

  Mr. Hanley
  Before it was submitted, sponsors of the Royal Group of Hospitals' application for HSS trust status met trade unions on many occasions.

  Trades unions are among the bodies invited, as part of the public consultation, to comment on the application.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans his Department has to mark World No Tobacco Day on 31 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department had no specific plans for marking World No Tobacco Day. Northern Ireland Departments adopted a formal policy on smoking in 1987. The introduction of a non-smoking policy is being actively pursued in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Road Improvement Schemes
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what minor road improvement schemes have been carried out in the Downpatrick and Craigavon divisions between 1 March 1985 and 31 March in the current year.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Downpatrick

  Scheme

  Description

  A22 in Lisbane Village

  Widening and reconstruction of existing carriageway

  Hillsborough Old Road, Stage 1, Lisburn

  Footway provision and carriageway widening

  Old Grand Jury Road, Saintfield

  Footway provision and junction improvement

  Cow Lane, Castlewellan

  Carriageway improvements

  Croft Road, Holywood

  Footway provision and carriageway widening

  Duncans Road, Stage 1, Lisburn

  Road widening and footway provision

  Bryansford Road, Newcastle

  Footway provision

  A24 south of Ballynahinch in townland of Ballymaglave

  Carriageway widening and sight distance improvements

  Duncans Road, Stage 2, Lisburn

  Footway provision

  Blaris Road, Sprucefield

  Footway provision and junction improvement

  Whinney Hill, Holywood

  Footway provision and carriageway widening

  Church Road, Holywood

  Sight distance improvements and carriageway widening

  Ballycrochan Road, Bangor

  Carriageway widening and footway provision

  Bridge Street, Comber, Stage 1

  Street reconstruction

  Killyleagh Streets

  Reconstruction of Catherine Street and Cross Street

  Circular Road, Castlewellan

  Carriageway improvements and footway provision

  256

  Ballyskeagh Road, Lambeg, Stage 2

  Sight distance improvements and carriageway realignment

  Bridge Street, Comber, Stage 2

  Street reconstruction

  Talbot Street/William Street, Newtownards

  Junction improvement

  Vianstown Road, Downpatrick

  Sight distance improvements and carriageway reconstruction

  Hillsborough Old Road, Stage 2, Lisburn

  Footway provision and carriageway widening

  Ballystockart Road, Comber, Stage 1

  Carriageway widening and reconstruction

  Downpatrick/Ardglass Road, Stage 1

  Carriageway widening and sight distance improvements

  Ballystockart Road, Comber, Stage 2

  Carriageway widening and reconstruction

  Seahill Road/Bangor Road junction, Cultra

  Junction improvement

  Downpatrick to Ardglass Road, Stage 2

  Carriageway widening and sight distance improvements

  Old Holywood Road at Redburn Country Park

  Sight distance improvements and carriageway widening

  Belsize Road, Lisburn

  Footway and roundabout provision

  Saintfield Road Roundabout, Lisburn

  Junction improvements

  Dunover Road, Ballywalter

  Footway provision and carriageway realignment

  Craigavon

  Scheme

  Description

  A28 Drumgollif, Caledon Armagh

  Realignment/widening

  A29 Tullygoonigan, Moy, Armagh

  Junction improvement

  B131 Legacorry, Richhill

  Bridge reconstruction and realignment

  B10 Lisnasliggan, Rathfriland

  Realignment/widening

  B10 Rathfriland Road, Banbridge

  Widening

  A26 Smiths Hill, Banbridge

  Junction improvement and realignment

  Huntly Road, Lenderg, Banbridge

  Realignment/widening

  New Link, Dromore

  New road to replace Castle Street

  A3 Magheralin

  Realignment/widening

  Charles Street Portadown

  Realignment/widening

  Greencastle Street Kilkeel

  Junction improvement

  A25 Orchard Bar, Rathfriland

  Realignment/widening

  Mill Road, Kilkeel

  Realignment/widening

  Newtown Road Rostrevor 2

  Realignment/widening

  Francis Street, Newry

  Reconstruction/widening

  Ballyholland Road, Newry

  Road widening

  B30 Cregganduff 2, Crossmaglen

  Realignment/widening

  B133 McKnights Hill, Bessbrook

  Junction improvement widening

  B2 Gilpinstown, Lurgan

  Realignment/widening

  Canal Bridge, Newry

  Bridge reconstruction widening

  A25 Camlough 2, Newry

  Junction improvement widening

  A27 Aughlish, Scarva

  Junction improvement widening

  B77 Vinecash, Loughgall, Portadown

  Junction improvement realignment

  A26 Currys Turn, Waringstown

  Junction improvement realignment

  B3 Corcreeny, Lurgan

  Realignment/widening

  B3 Pound Road, Newry

  Reconstruction/widening

  B30 Campbells Bridge, Crossmaglen

  Realignment/widening

  B31 Ballymoran, Armagh

  Realignment/widening

  B3 Dunlarg, Keady

  Realignment/widening

  Inn Road, Dollingstown

  Road widening

  Derrylileagh, Maghery, Portadown

  Realignment/widening

  A2 Killowen 3(2), Rostrevor

  Realignment/widening

  Clonallen Road I, Warrenpoint

  Road widening

  Callan Bridge, Armagh

  New Footbridge

  257

  A26 Lawrencetown, Banbridge

  Realignment widening

  Barban Hill, Dromore 1

  Road widening

  Ballymoney Hill, Banbridge

  Road widening

  A4 Dungannon Road 1, Portadown

  Verge widening

  Clonallen Road 2, Warrenpoint

  Road widening

  A51 Marlacoo, Markethill

  Realignment/widening

  A50 Ballievy, Banbridge

  Sight line improvement

  Old Newry Road, Banbridge

  Road widening

  Barban Hill, Dromore 2

  Road widening

  A2 Killowen 1B, Rostrevor

  Realignment/widening

  A3 Lisglyn, Armagh

  Road widening

  Education (Access Funds)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many students are currently receiving access funds from each education board in Northern Ireland;

  (2) what was the total amount of access funds allocated to each education board in Northern Ireland;

  (3) how many students were refused access funding by each education board in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is:

  Board

  No. of students in receipt of access funding

  Access Funds allocated (1990–91 financial year) £

  No. of students refused access funding

  Belfast

  67

  29,000

  10

  Southern

  73

  29,000

  33

  South-Eastern

  33

  29,000

  8

  North-Eastern

  36

  29,000

  2

  Western

  129

  28,000

  67

WALES

  School Tests (Moderators)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the training and appointment of moderators for school tests at(a) seven and (b) 11 years-old.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the training and appointment of moderators for school tests at(a) seven and (b) 11 years-old.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Moderation is part of the national curriculum assessment arrangements which, for seven and 11-year-olds, is the responsibility of the individual local education authorities.

  Each LEA, supported by total grant approved expenditure of £2·2 million in 1991–92, is required to develop assessment implementation plans which cover the administrative and training arrangements for moderation. The School Examinations and Assessment Council has provided detailed guidance on moderation which will be updated later this year for use in the 1992 arrangements.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table indicating levels of Strontium 90 detected in rainfall in Wales in each year since 1961; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Monitoring of Strontium-90 in rainfall has been conducted on a regular basis at only two sites in Wales. The available information is given in the table.
  258

  Annual Deposition of Strontium-90 from Rainfall1 Megabecquerels per square kilometer

  Milford Haven2

  Bridgend3

  1961

  91

  4

  1962

  350

  4

  1963

  770

  4

  1964

  430

  4

  1965

  180

  4

  1966

  110

  4

  1967

  45

  4

  1968

  46

  4

  1969

  31

  4

  1970

  44

  4

  1971

  52

  4

  1972

  4

  4

  1973

  4

  4

  1974

  4

  4

  1975

  4

  8·1

  1976

  4

  9·7

  1977

  4

  15·4

  1978

  4

  12·3

  1979

  4

  15·7

  1980

  4

  5·6

  1981

  4

  20·3

  1982

  4

  4·2

  1983

  4

  5

  1984

  <5

  5

  1985

  <3

  5

  1986

  2·2

  5

  1987

  <2

  5

  1988

  <2

  5

  1989

  4

  5

  1990

  4

  5

  1 Levels reached a peak in the early 1960s following nuclear weapons tests in 1961 and 1962. 1981 levels were increased by fallout from Chinese atomic weapons tests in October 1980.

  2 Source: Atomic Energy Authority Technology.

  3 Source: National Radiological Protection Board.

  4 Not available.

  5 Nil or below limits of detection.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Morgan
  to ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any proposals to issue guidelines to general practitioner fund-holders and to hospitals regarding preferential placing on hospitals waiting lists for general practitioner fund-holder's patients.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I do not propose to issue guidance at present.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state how many people have been killed as a result of road accidents in Wales in each of the past 10 years, and what is the total to date this year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Persons killed as a result of road accidents in Wales

  Number

  1981

  275

  1982

  300

  1983

  245

  1984

  250

  1985

  245

  259

  Number

  1986

  235

  1987

  220

  1988

  226

  1989

  231

  11990

  248

  121991

  12

  1 Provisional

  2 1991 data from all police authority areas are only available centrally to end of January.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he proposes to take any further measures to improve road safety in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We are continually seeking to improve road safety. For example, we are currently encouraging the use of rear seat belts which will be compulsory as from 1 July.

  Roads
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects(a) to invite tenders for the construction work on the A465 Glynneath-Aberdulais improvement and (b) construction work to start on the A465 Glynneath-Aberdulais improvement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The 1991 supplement to "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s" shows the scheme as scheduled to start before April 1994. It is not possible to give a firmer indication of timing at this stage.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to improve valley road links to the motorway system.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responsibility for improving these roads rests with the respective local highway authorities. A number of major improvement schemes are receiving transport grant support from the Department and information is given in the Welsh Office departmental report published in February.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the north-south road links in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have received a number of representations. The Government's policy is to upgrade the A483 and A470 by means of selective improvements. Details of planned schemes are set out in "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s" published in 1989, and the supplement published in February 1991.

  The discretionary capital allocations, notified to each health authority in Wales at the start of each financial year in the period 1985–86 to 1991–92 were as follows:

  £ million 1985–86 prices

  Health authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Clwyd

  2·697

  3·458

  3·747

  4·218

  5·555

  4·670

  6·023

  East Dyfed

  1·209

  1·550

  1·679

  1·891

  1·580

  2·384

  3·075

  Gwent

  2·823

  3·619

  3·922

  4·415

  5·871

  4·600

  5·933

  Gwynedd

  0·991

  1·270

  1·376

  1·550

  1·399

  1·272

  1·640

  Mid Glamorgan

  3·089

  3·960

  4·292

  4·831

  5·759

  5·991

  7·727

  Pembrokeshire

  0·573

  0·735

  0·796

  0·896

  1·577

  1·464

  1·888

  Powys

  0·584

  0·750

  0·811

  0·914

  1·277

  0·828

  1·068

  South Glamorgan

  1·482

  1·900

  2·059

  2·317

  2·870

  5·905

  7·616

  Smoking
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken to discourage tobacco smoking in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  In Wales the campaign against smoking is carried out on many fronts. In 1987 the Government established a special authority, the Health Promotion Authority for Wales (HPAW), to promote better health in the Principality. The authority has taken on the work of Heartbeat Wales in promoting programmes to stop smoking and to stop people from ever starting.

  HPAW in association with other organisations has mounted a number of national and local campaigns including National No Smoking Day in Wales, the recent launch of a passive no smoking leaflet, two mobile life education centres which feature the effect smoking has on the body and which are currently touring primary schools in Wales, and initiatives for employers, public transport operators and the retail and catering trade to provide no smoking areas. Moreover, HPAW, ASH-in-Wales (which has Government support) and Tenovus are jointly funding the forthcoming Smokebusters Cymru project, partly through additional exchequer funding made available for the project.

  Recently the Department produced protocols for investment in health gain in the areas of cancer and cardiovascular diseases which acknowledge the health gain benefits of discouraging smoking. These protocols are aimed mainly at district health authorities (DHAs) and family health service authorities (FHSAs) to assist them to develop their local strategies for health. These strategies will cover local approaches to tackling heart disease, strokes, cancers, etc. and include a section on health promotion and influencing lifestyle factors detrimental to good health one of which is the incidence of smoking. Furthermore, many DHAs in Wales have a declared policy on non-smoking on NHS premises and whose health promotion units run anti-smoking programmes at local level. In the development of patient care GPs have been obliged by their terms of service to provide health promotion advice to their patients. GPs who organise and provide advice through health promotion clinics including anti-smoking clinics may be entitled to a special compensation fee.

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the capital allocation to each of the health authorities in Wales for each year since 1985, at 1985 prices.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is given in the table.
  261

  Health authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  West Glamorgan

  2·692

  3·452

  3·741

  4·211

  5·409

  6·005

  7·744

  Total

  16·140

  20·695

  22·423

  25·243

  31·298

  33·120

  42·714

  Dog Bites
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) children under 16 years and (b) adults have been treated under the national health service for bites by dogs in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the future of the housing stock of the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I shall be consulting shortly upon draft regulations to govern the disposal of Development Board for Rural Wales housing stock.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Development Board for Rural Wales houses there are; and in what towns and villages they are situated.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Development Board currently owns 1,259 dwellings located as follows:

  Location

  Newtown

  1,186

  Llandrindod Wells

  20

  Tywyn

  26

  Bala

  10

  Dolgellau

  7

  Abercrave, Ystradgynlais

  10

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Development Board for Rural Wales houses have been sold in each of the past 10 years; and what was the total income from house sales in each of the past 10 years.

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

  Number of dwellings

  Income (£000s)1

  1981

  12

  144

  1982

  20

  230

  1983

  27

  352

  1984

  9

  111

  1985

  11

  130

  1986

  21

  250

  1987

  35

  491

  1988

  47

  710

  1989

  58

  1,075

  1990

  69

  1,339

  Source: Development Board for Rural Wales sales returns.

  1 Income figures are totals of the selling prices of disposed dwellings and as such no account is taken of mortgages granted by the Board on any of these dwellings: 6 such mortgages were granted over the period.

  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, welcomes the extension of home ownership that these sales represent.
  262
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Development Board for Rural Wales houses have been involved in the rents to mortgages scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Board has received 105 formal applications and has completed sales of 23 dwellings. This represents almost 3 per cent. of the board's eligible stock and is as successful as the initial take-up under our right to buy policy.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will consult the tenants of Development Board for Rural Wales houses before he permits a change of status of such houses.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The draft regulations will include provision for tenants to express their wishes.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which Development Board for Rural Wales housing stock is earmarked for housing association status.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It will be for the board to formulate its proposals in the light of regulations to be made in due course. I shall in no way prejudge my response to such proposals.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) trade unionists, (b) lawyers, (c) women, (d) men and (e) business men have been appointed to training and enterprise councils in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  At May 1991, board members of the TECs in Wales included(a) three trade unionists, (b) one lawyer, (c) nine women, (d) 87 men and (e) 68 business men.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to enable road and rail traffic to have better access to the channel tunnel rail link.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The provision of rail links is a matter for British Rail, which published its plans for channel tunnel services in December 1989 as required by section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. British Rail is now working up its proposals. Planned road improvements are set out in "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s', and the 1991 supplement. Further major schemes to improve communications in north-east Clwyd and south-east Wales were announced on 14 May.

SCOTLAND

  Broadleaved Forest
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what area of Britain's broadleaved forest is at present productive for timber; and what percentage of the United Kingdom's hardwood timber needs this satisfies.
  263
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are 811,000 hectares of broadleaved woodland in Britain, of which 615,000 hectares are classed as productive for timber. Some 23 per cent. of our total hardwood timber consumption is at present met by broadleaves grown in this country.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the management of Britain's broadleaved forest is being directed towards achieving a reduction in imports of socially and ecologically sensitive tropical hardwoods.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's broadleaves policy is successfully encouraging an increase in the area of broadleaved forest in Britain. In addition, the Government will be making management grants available from April 1992 under the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme to encourage the improved management of existing woodlands. Taken together, these measures can be expected to lead in due course to a significant increase in the total production of timber from Britain's broadleaved forests. However, hardwood timber grown in Britain currently meets only a quarter of total consumption, and direct substitution of certain tropical hardwoods by domestic timber supplies may not always be feasible because of the different qualities of timber involved.

  County

  Property

  Year sold

  Purchaser

  England

  Bedfordshire

  Marston Thrift

  1987

  Bedfordshire county council

  Buckinghamshire

  Hog and Hollowhill

  1987

  Buckinghamshire county council

  Cumbria

  Pool Bank

  1988

  Nature Conservancy Council

  North Yorkshire

  Little Beck Wood

  1986

  Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

  North Yorkshire

  Stapleton Park

  1986

  Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

  Northumberland

  Biddlestone Lot 1

  1986

  P. Burgess

  Northumberland

  Briarwood Banks

  1988

  Northumberland Wildlife Trust

  Warwickshire

  Knavenhill and Boundary

  1988

  Mr. Hodgkinson

  West Sussex

  Kings Park Plaist

  1988

  Southern Water

  Wales

  Dyfed

  Panteg, Pencelli, Pontbren

  1988

  Dyfed Wildlife Trust

  Dyfed

  Coed Rheidol

  1990

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Scotland

  Borders

  Pease Dean

  1988

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Borders

  Gamescleugh (pt)

  1989

  Mr. and Mrs. Watson

  Highland

  Beinn Eighe

  1989

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Highland

  Glenspean

  1988

  A. E. Reader and others

  Highland

  Loch Insch Plantations

  1989

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Strathclyde

  Tiroran/Scobull

  1989

  D. M. Holman

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all lands owned by the Forestry Commission which have been notified as SSSIs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A list of the 393 areas of Forestry Commission land notified as SSSIs has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all land in England and Wales which was owned by the Forestry Commission and has been sold; and if he will show in his answer the name of the purchaser.

  Dogs
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what information he has on the number of dogs in Scotland;

  (2) if he will estimate how many (a) rottweilers and (b) pit bull terriers there are in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dogs have been destroyed under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 in each of the past five years; and of these how many were(a) rottweilers and (b) pit bull terriers.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  Forestry Commission (Land)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to whom the Forestry Commission has disposed of any land notified as a site of special scientific interest since 1986.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Forestry Commission sold 36 areas of land containing sites of special scientific interest in the period from 1 April to 31 March 1991. Permission from the purchasers to divulge their names has been given in respect of 17 of these areas, details of which are given in the following table:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 14 March 1991,Official Report, column 691. A list of the areas of forest land sold by the Forestry Commission in the period from 27 July 1981 to 31 December 1990 has now been placed in the Library. It includes the names of those purchasers who have given their consent to such information being made public.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all land in England and Wales which was owned by the Forestry Commission and has been sold, for which local authorities have been able to enter into an access agreement.
  265
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such agreements have been entered into pending the introduction of the procedures outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) in the answer he gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 21 November 1990,Official Report, columns 164–6. The Forestry Commission has prepared draft guidelines setting out the details of these procedures which are currently the subject of consultation with a wide range of public and private bodies concerned with public access to the countryside, forestry and land management. The new arrangements will be introduced as soon as these consultations have been concluded.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of unfilled speech therapy posts in Greater Glasgow health board for the Southern general hospital, the Western infirmary and Gartnavel hospitals, the Victoria infirmary, the Royal infirmary and Stobhill hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is one full-time speech therapist vacancy at Gartnavel general hospital and one full-time vacancy at the Southern general hospital. Both posts were advertised on 30 May.

  Forestry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to produce a new set of objectives for forestry policy in England and Wales, covering(a) environmental needs (b) public enjoyment and (c) timber products.

  Cause of death

  Species

  Number

  Trauma

  Disease

  Starvation

  Poisoned

  Unknown

  Barn owl

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buzzard

  34

  4

  5

  4

  13

  8

  Eagle

  6

  —

  —

  1

  4

  1

  Goshawk

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hen harrier

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Kestrel

  12

  3

  —

  3

  —

  6

  Merlin

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Peregrine falcon

  4

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Red kite

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Sparrow hawk

  17

  8

  1

  2

  —

  6

  Tawny owl

  4

  3

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  85

  20

  7

  12

  19

  27

  Health Board Contracts
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contracts for hospital and health board services awarded so far under the competitive tendering process by Ayrshire and Arran health board, including successful tenderer and value of contract.

  Hospital Unit

  Service Type

  Contractor

  Previous cost £000s

  Tender value £000s

  Crosshouse

  Catering

  In-house

  813

  779

  Crosshouse

  Domestic

  In-house

  808

  765

  Ayrshire Central

  Catering

  In-house

  525

  516

  Ayrshire Central

  Domestic

  In-house

  430

  401

  Head Office

  Hotel

  In-house

  38

  34

  North Clinics and Health Centres

  Hotel

  In-house

  56

  55

  Kirklandside

  Hotel

  In-house

  411

  401

  Ballochmyle/Holmhead

  Hotel

  In-house

  1,286

  1,142

  266
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The objectives of the Government's forestry policy have evolved in recent years to reflect the increasingly diverse role perceived for forestry in Britain, with a greater emphasis being placed on social and environmental benefits as well as on timber production. There are no plans to produce a new set of objectives at this stage.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he plans to control the commercial afforestation of hilly areas in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Forestry Commission's consultations with local authorities and other statutory bodies in relation to grant-aid applications act as an effective control over new planting schemes. The consultation procedures have been strengthened by the introduction of arrangements whereby the Forestry Commission may require grant applicants to carry out an environmental assessment of new planting proposals where these are likely to have significant effects on the environment. In addition, the Forestry Commission continues to operate a presumption against the large-scale planting of predominantly coniferous species in the English uplands. Taken together, these measures represent an effective system of regulating planting in the uplands.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number, species and cause of death of birds of prey discovered in 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as shown in the following table:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Contracts awarded in the Ayrshire and Arran health board area are expected to release savings of over £2·5 million. These savings release resources for reinvestment in direct patient care.

  The information is as follows:
  267

  Hospital Unit

  Service Type

  Contractor

  Previous cost £000s

  Tender value £000s

  Ailsa

  Hotel

  In-house

  1,474

  1,399

  Ayrshire Central/Ravenspark

  Hotel

  In-house

  1,013

  947

  Biggart/Thornyflat

  Hotel

  In-house

  599

  537

  Davidson Cottage

  Hotel

  In-house

  111

  100

  Crosshouse

  Hotel

  In-house

  777

  692

  South Clinics and Health Centres/Maybole Hospital

  Hotel

  In-house

  51

  43

  Arrol Park Resource Centre

  Hotel

  Mediguard

  new service

  359

  All Board

  Vehicle maintenance

  In-house

  136

  121

  All board

  Painting

  1

  309

  195

  2

  170

  114

  3—

  196

  168

  1 Moss Painting

  2 Baxter/Gillespie

  3 Baxter/Gillespie

  Note: In this context "hotel" means a combined contract including cleaning, portering, security and telephonists.

  Sports Grounds (Safety)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals, in relation to section 15A of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, to introduce mandatory, all-seating facilities to football stadia and other sports grounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The grounds of 31 Scottish football clubs and the national rugby stadium at Murrayfield are designated under the 1975 Act. The Scottish football authorities have set up the Scottish stadia committee to monitor the progress made by the owners of designated football grounds and the committee will be reporting progress annually to my right hon. Friend. The Scottish Office Education Department circular number 10/1991 of 28 March 1991 made it clear that, should progress on a voluntary basis be inadequate, we would consider seeking statutory enforcement powers.

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance has been given in each of the past five years by the European Community to Caledonian MacBrayne to operate essential public passenger ferry services between the mainland and the islands and among the islands; what sums are to be provided by the European Community for this purpose in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The financial assistance provided to Caledonian MacBrayne by the European regional development fund through grants towards new ships, piers and shore terminals for essential ferry services over the past five years is as follows:—

  Year

  £ million

  1986–87

  1·45

  1987–88

  1·79

  1988–89

  2·19

  1989–90

  2·69

  1990–91

  3·35

  It is not possible to predict the amounts for the years 1991–92 to 1993–94 as Caledonian MacBrayne, like other bodies, will require to make applications in respect of
  268
  proposed capital expenditure. Such applications will be considered on their merits by a programme monitoring Committee which includes representatives of central and local government, the European Community and other organisations. However, grants from the European regional development fund will cease to be available in their present form in 1993. No guarantee can, therefore, be given that individuals applications which may be approved in principle will receive grant.

  Licensing Legislation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines he has issued to local authorities about the changes in licensing legislation brought about by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office Home and Health Department issued a circular to local authorities, licensing boards and other interested parties on 12 December 1990 explaining the changes to be made to liquor licensing law by part III of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which came into force on 1 January 1991. A copy of the circular has been placed in the Library.

  Lothian Regional Council
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet hon. Members representing Lothian constituencies to discuss Lothian regional council's financial problems.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 May 1991]: I met representatives of Lothian regional council on Friday 17 May to hear their representations against my proposed reduction of £50 in their personal community charge.

  I remain satisfied that Lothian's planned expenditure for 1991–92 is "excessive and unreasonable". However, since the financial year is well under way, I have indicated my willingness not to pursue capping action if the council agrees to reduce its charge by £37, the equivalent of a £18·5 million cut in expenditure.

  In view of this meeting, during which council representatives raised a number of financial problems, I see no need for a further meeting with hon. Members.

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

Nurses: Clinical Grading Appeals
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many nurses are currently waiting for clinical grading appeals, and when they anticipate that all these appeals will have been decided.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, information on the total number of appeals is not collected centrally. However, as at the end of last month, and since 1988 when the new system came into force, 17,087 appeals were lodged at regional level and 897 at national level.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is she aware that the Royal College of Nursing estimates that there are something like 40,000 cases still waiting for appeal? Is she also aware that, despite the Secretary of State's statement to the House of Commons in 1988 that all the appeals would be heard by the spring of 1989, at the present rate of progress it is likely to be the year 2000 before all the appeals are heard?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am well aware that the procedure under which these appeals are heard is a very time-consuming one. However, it was established by the General Whitley Council and in fact it gives appellants three chances to overturn the original grading decision. Of course, delays can arise in that process. Nevertheless, I am happy to say that the management and staff sides of the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council have now agreed to discuss ways of streamlining the system.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, after listening to the incredible figures quoted a moment ago by my noble friend, does the Minister not think that those figures are, to put it mildly, somewhat alarming? Does she also agree that there is a need, on behalf of the Royal College of Nursing, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and indeed all nurses, for the department to take a very serious look at the situation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the Department of Health, and also as Ministers, we have always emphasised that we wish to see clinical grading appeals at all levels heard quickly and fairly. It has to be said that the obstacle to that has been the insistence of the unions on very complex procedures which I have outlined. However, I think the fact that the two sides are getting together to discuss a better procedure is a hopeful sign.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister explain why these figures are not known nationally? After all, the decision was taken nationally. Is this just a sequence in which Ministers are failing to accept responsibility for decisions which were taken? Does not the noble Baroness think that such figures ought to be taken nationally? Further, does she recognise the fact that this is a most unsatisfactory situation? The morale of 40,000 nurses is gravely affected by the fact that they have now been kept waiting for three years. Does the situation not worry the Minister?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we certainly want to see an efficient system in place and we certainly wish to see happy staff. However, it is necessary that everyone's interests are taken into account. The Government have pursued a course of encouraging the sides to get together in order to improve the system.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, many of the outstanding 40,000 cases will go up to the region. Therefore, in view of the fact that the region now has so few members, is not the Minister slightly worried that the length of time will double before such appeals can be heard; that is, compared with the system which we had before 1st April when there were quite a number of people able to hear such complaints?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are very concerned about the problem. That is why our activities have been directed towards getting improvements and changes in the system. Nevertheless, I beg to differ with the noble Baroness as regards the size of the health authorities having anything to do with it. For the purpose of appeals, it is possible for health authorities to co-opt members.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, is absolutely correct in that one of the major difficulties in the appeals system is that it appears that in most areas of the country the authorities have insisted on a member being on the appeals panel. If we could do away with having members on such panels, would this very unfortunate situation be resolved much faster?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, authorities are empowered to co-opt members to appeals panels. That has been provided for by recent amendments to the Health Authority Membership and Procedures Regulations set out in the guidance issued to health authorities.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Royal College of Nursing estimates that the appeals so far have cost in excess of £9 million? Can she say what the likely cost may be when the final appeals have been heard?
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords; we do not have that information at present. However, it is certainly true that the Government announced that they were fully funding the introduction of the clinical grading structure, which was, incidentally, originally recommended by the Nurses' Pay Review Body. We provided an additional allocation in April 1988 in

643
order to do this and a further one was provided in October 1988. The total cost involved for the new structure in 1988–89 was £928 million.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are very pleased to hear that she wants to improve the system and that she wants the delays to be eliminated? However, how can she possibly do that, and how can the Government possibly know that they can do so, unless they have the figures centrally? If they do not have the figures, they do not know what they have to do or how much they have to do.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, we do not collect the figures centrally. I quoted earlier the number of appeals which have been lodged—the figures I quoted concerned the number of appeals lodged at regional and national levels. Of those, 1,831 appeals have been heard at regional level and 56 at national level, of which, incidentally, 27 per cent. and 35 per cent. respectively have been successful. The delay is caused by the three-tier system. Noble Lords are quoting figures which apply to the first stage in the procedure. The accurate figures which I have on the second two stages of the procedure are also ones which give considerable cause for concern.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, my first question, and it was the question also put by my noble friend Lord Stoddart, was: why does the department not know the figures? The Minister has not answered that question. Is there some reason why it does not have the information which has been collected and is readily available from the RCN and other bodies?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is no system in place to provide that detailed information centrally. However, we are well aware of the figures being quoted by the RCN and others.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend say what has been done to hurry up these appeals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, a working group of the NMNC is currently considering options designed to streamline the process as it applies to clinical grading appeals for nurses. The forum for agreeing any permanent change, which would apply nationally, is the General Whitley Council. That, too, is currently examining all aspects of existing appeals procedures. The Government are encouraging progress on both fronts.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the large number of appeals at regional and national level, and assuming that none of them is because nursing staff have been graded too highly, will the Government instruct the NHS management to ensure that the grading of nurses and midwives recognises the value of the clinical job that they do?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, one of the problems with the implementation of the new structure is the difference between the new structure and its predecessor as grading is now based upon the duties
644
and responsibilities of a particular post and not on the postholder's qualifications. That obviously allows for differences of opinion. Nevertheless, we believe that there is justification for a clinical grading structure because it provides a means of recognising and rewarding increasing skill levels. It is important to get the guidance right. Currently part of the problem is that there are two rival sets of guidance—one produced by the staff side and one produced by the management side. That is all part and parcel of the exercise being conducted to streamline the procedures.

Coal Industry: Privatisation Plans
2.46 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to prepare for the privatisation of the coal industry.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government remain committed to returning the coal industry to the private sector after the next election. To that end we recently announced the appointment of Rothschild as financial advisers to assist with preparatory work. We hope to announce the appointment of legal and accounting advisers shortly. That preliminary work will allow more rapid progress to be made when we come to privatise the industry. However, no decisions about the form or timing of privatisation will be taken until after the election, and after those interested have had an opportunity to express their views.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if National Power and PowerGen do not place with British Coal adequate contracts —contracts which must be in place in 18 months' time —most of the country's coal industry will have to close down? Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Energy recently stated that it would be a mistake if contracts were to be settled solely on price and that security of supply was an important consideration? May I remind the Minister that we on these Benches have been saying that for years? In view of the urgency, especially over the contracts, what are the Government doing?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it is a matter for the generators. The Government do not propose to intervene. The coal industry is making good progress with productivity. It is up by over 90 per cent. on pre-strike levels. Further productivity gains are essential. The industry has the investment, the technology and the skills to achieve them. There are many other factors which will encourage the generating companies to continue to place contracts with British Coal.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the facts quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, constitute a damning indictment of nationalisation? Will my noble friend tell your Lordships how much the industry has cost the taxpayer by way of subsidy since it was nationalised?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend what the industry has cost the taxpayer since it was nationalised. I can tell him that since the Government came into power the taxpayer has contributed to the industry to the tune of £7 billion —not nothing.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Department of Energy has called upon the bank adviser of the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, N.M. Rothschild, to draw up the proposals for the privatisation of the coal mining industry? Has the Minister seen the comments made in The Times last Saturday that Rothschild's experience in the energy field includes its role as adviser to the 12 regional electricity companies privatised last December as well as acting, for Hanson plc during its abortive bid to buy PowerGen? Hanson plc also owns Peabody, the American mining group and one of the world's largest coal producers. Is there not a conflict of interest here? Will the Minister take the opportunity to clear the air and explain fully to the House whether or not there is a conflict of interest?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I should have thought that there was categorically no conflict of interest. We shall seek the best advice we can obtain in the circumstances, having examined what advice is available.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, did I understand from the Minister's initial reply that there would be full consultation with representatives of employees before firm plans are made for the privatisation of the industry?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I emphatically confirm that.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the Minister looked at the profits now earned by British Gas, British Telecom and the water companies and the share movements in each of those companies? Does it not suggest that the financial advice given by the Government has been faulty and that national assets have bee a sold off too cheaply?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, that is wide of the Question. Suffice it to say that I do not agree.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that bankers are appropriate advisers to the Government on a matter of this kind?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we need banking advice. I said in my original reply that we would have other forms of advice as well.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to tell us and to confirm to my noble friend Lord Mason that Rothschild were acting for the Government and that there were legal advisers. Will he be good enough also to tell us on what fee basis Rothschild are acting? Is the taxpayer to pay merchant banking fees and legal fees for something that may never happen? Or are they acting on a contingent fee basis, in case noble Lords opposite lose the next election?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we do not plan to lose the next election. We are not appointing Rothschild as legal advisers. I do not know at the moment what the fee basis is; I shall need to write to the noble Lord on that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not know on what fee basis the Government are hiring Rothschild and other legal advisers, will he be good enough to find out and let me know in writing?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have just told the noble Lord that I will find out the fee basis and write to him.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the Minister say what is the position on the future of coal liquefaction after privatisation? We should remember that nothing was done in that field by the private colliery owners.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, that is wide of the Question.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, does the Minister realise how important coal liquefaction is in order to replace petrol? What is to be the future of the station at Stoke Orchard? It is relevant to privatisation.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, if the noble Lord will put a question, I shall be pleased to try to answer it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister give an undertaking that any consultations with people representing workers in the industry will take place before the major decision of whether or not to privatise is taken? We should bear in mind the Government's track record in previous privatisations in which "consultations" meant consultations after decisions had been taken.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the policy is in place and has been for some time, as is well known to the House. Employee representatives will be consulted, but this will not be until after the next election.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the information he gave me concerning the amount of support provided by the Government to the coal industry contradicts what his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said? It was that there is a recognition of the need for some kind of support for the British coal industry, as the Secretary of State for Energy said, to ensure supply. If the two generating companies continue or increase the importing of coal from South Africa and from Colombia, where there is child labour—places with no trade unions and all that kind of thing—instead of from the more heavily subsidised industry here, would that necessarily be good?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we shall continue to support the industry, coal mining families and communities through British Coal Enterprise, which has been a great success. We do not believe that it is in the long-term interests of the coal industry to control imports. As regards imports involving child labour, which has been raised in your Lordships'

647
House before, there are undesirable working practices in countries like Colombia, but the products are mainly for domestic use. Imports from Colombia come mainly from a well-run, nationalised industry.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend and the Government accept that the protection and safety of the health of pit workers are of equal importance to the financial security of the industry? The Government should not be distracted from that by some of the flak from the other side.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am pleased to agree entirely with my noble friend.

Radon
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to inform the public about the effects of naturally occurring radon gas.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have published a range of booklets and leaflets describing the effects of radon and how it gets into houses, and giving guidance on ways of reducing radon levels. In March this year we arranged for a new leaflet to be delivered to every home in Devon and Cornwall, outlining what householders should do to apply for a free radon measurement. We have also made arrangements for a poster campaign and public service broadcasts in areas affected by radon.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply stating that much has already been done. While we are all exposed to radiation from natural sources, will the Government issue special advice and reassurance in those parts of the country where radon may cause a significant addition to radiation, especially inside buildings?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are doing that in the main areas in Devon and Cornwall, where perhaps 12 per cent. of the housing stock may be affected. We have taken certain actions: 20,000 measurements have been carried out. Since the publicity campaign in March, more than 72,000 additional requests for free radon measurements have been received and 50,000 are in progress.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that a map of the effects of radon gas was recently published? The black part of the map denoted the worst and the white the best areas. Leaving aside Devon and Cornwall, one of the black parts of the map was mid-Wales, where I happen to live. Will the noble Viscount be kind enough to inform me what action is being taken to tell me, as an inhabitant of mid-Wales, what the risks from radon gas are? I have received no information whatsoever on the subject.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have started in the main areas of Devon and Cornwall but our campaign will extend to the other areas that the National
648
Radiological Protection Board consider suitable. If the noble Lord is in such an area and contacts his local authority, it will explain to him how to get in touch with the board, which will allow him a free test.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, another part which appears black on the map is Cumbria, where I live. I should quite like to continue to live there. Is not the problem that we must reassure people that the dangers are minimal? We do not want those living in Cornwall, Devon, Cumbria and parts of mid-Wales to feel that they must inevitably move to some other part of the country. It is not necessary.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely correct. However, the levels where we consider it right to take action are half those that the EC recommend. It is quite easy to do what is necessary, either by sealing the floor or by installing air bricks to draw air out from below the floor of a building. That will sort the problem out.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the National Radiological Protection Board has made recommendations which the Government are taking into account. Has the board completed the survey of the country which it undertook two or three years ago?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand that the survey has been completed in the main areas. The board is now going into further areas to see whether there are any problems. I do not believe that it has yet finished examining every area; it has only examined the main ones.

NHS Hospitals: Waste Incinerator Standards
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that waste incinerators in NHS hospitals meet the health and safety standards set by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution for other waste disposers.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the National Health Service uses incinerators primarily for the safe disposal of clinical waste. These incinerators are usually of a capacity that requires regulation by local authority inspectorates rather than by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, both under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The 1990 Act establishes stringent new standards for the disposal of clinical waste and the National Health Service will have to meet these requirements as quickly as possible.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is it not a fact that at the moment many incinerators cannot burn waste at the high temperatures that are required to produce a safe result as they have no gas cleaning system and in many cases the chimneys are too low? That must pose a threat not only to patients in the hospitals concerned but also to surrounding residents. Why

649
then has the department given hospital authorities another five years to meet the required standards? Surely this matter requires more urgency than that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, although compliance with the new standards has to be achieved in full within five years of 1st April 1991 under the terms of the 1990 Act, health authorities will have to meet a much shorter timescale unless there are exceptional circumstances. The expectation is that satisfactory arrangements for the safe disposal of clinical waste will have been made within 12 months.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, many people are now being treated in the community who have quite serious infections and who attend day surgery. Does the Minister consider that the facilities for disposing of clinical waste in the community are adequate?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is rather a different angle to the Question. I shall look into that aspect of the matter and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, at a meeting which I attended yesterday an official of the BMA made the point that the association was very worried about this matter It had some proof that the waste from hospitals is entering water supplies. That would indicate a serious situation and five years is far too long a period for that situation to persist.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord did not hear a previous reply of mine when I said that the main requirement would be achieved within a 12-month period although full implementation of the required standards has to be achieved within five years. However, we are concerned about this matter. Recently Crown immunity was abolished and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 introduced more stringent provisions. I believe those two measures will go a long way towards meeting the anxieties that are felt about this matter.
Bareness Phillips: My Lords, I hope I may offer some comfort to the Minister. The Charing Cross Hospital is situated near my home. Every morning I watch three of its chimneys baking away. I have asked one of my medical grandchildren what that meant. I shall not repeat to your Lordships what he said but at least one London hospital is efficient.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that comment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept the serious nature of the report produced by the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors? The association's director of industrial affairs has stated:
"Never in the 21-year history of NAWDC has the association come across an area of waste management where the current practices are so appallingly below standard".
Yesterday the Government made an announcement about its intentions as regards public health. Bearing that fact in mind, should not the Government give this matter a high priority?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. As I said, we believe the provision in the 1990 Act places a legal responsibility on producers—in this case we are discussing individual health authorities and NHS trusts—to dispose of their waste properly and to ensure that the law is fully complied with right through from the generation of waste to its final disposal. We believe that that provision will go a long way towards meeting the anxieties that exist in this area. We are aware of those anxieties.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 12 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, he would do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate. In the case of the debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit, but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it would conform with the spirit of these short debates if they would keep their speeches within the 15 minutes which apply to the mover of the Motion.

Arms Sales
3.4 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos rose to call attention to the sale of arms, especially to the developing world; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the carnage of the First World War, the League of Nations produced a report blaming the war on rampant arms merchandising. The League of Nations called for the control of arms sales and for disarmament. At the same time in the United States the Government held an inquiry which produced a report and which led to legislation to control the arms trade. That occurred over 70 years ago. We know what dreadful things have happened in the intervening years. The monstrous crimes of Hitler, Stalin and of lesser, if equally evil, despots are scars on the face of history.
Today we seem to have reached another watershed. The end of the Cold War and of the Gulf war seem to give mankind a breathing space to contemplate the prospects of peace and how it may be achieved. The unfettered sale of arms is one aspect of the huge problem facing the world at this time.
Incidentally, the end of the Cold War is paradoxically a factor in the operation of the arms market. As East and West reduce military purchases, the manufacturers on both sides are faced with excess capacity. They do not go home to read the New

651
Testament and to thank the Lord for the blessings of disarmament. They look for new overseas customers, and they are not always fussy who they are.
If President Bush is to succeed in his objective, there must be full co-operation between the major arms producers. It has been reported that the Soviet Union, because disarmament is resulting in a surplus of arms, is busily negotiating the sale of weaponry to Iran and Syria. The paradox here is that while we are negotiating arms reductions in Europe with some success, more arms will be sold in the Middle East making things even more dangerous and difficult there.
The other development is that Middle East countries, realising the superiority in sophisticated weapons of the coalition forces in the Gulf war, are now desperate to obtain this type of sophisticated armament themselves. I hope the Minister will let us know whether there is any validity in those reports. One point needs to be made; namely, that every state has the right and the duty to make adequate provision for its own defence and in a broader context to contribute with allies to regional defence.
For over 40 years NATO has ensured the maintenance of peace and stability in Europe. This country, under successive governments, has from the start played a significant role in NATO. There is no doubt that the steadfastness of NATO is at least partly responsible for the historic changes which have taken place in Eastern Europe. We know that the role of NATO is being reviewed at this present time and that radical changes to the alliance armies in Germany have been agreed. We read that national armies are to be converted into mobile multi-national units and that Britain's contribution to the new order will be two divisions. There is some expectation that our defence budget will be reduced as a result, but I note that the US Defense Secretary, Mr. Dick Cheney, warned a few days ago that the cost of making the changes will be high. I hope the noble Earl will comment on that. These changes and their implications need to be discussed separately in the forthcoming defence debate. However, they have a close bearing on the production of armaments for sale.
I am sure that we all welcomed President Bush's speech last week when he proposed that the world's five leading arms suppliers should meet soon to discuss new guidelines for controlling the sales of conventional weapons, weapons of mass destruction and related technologies. His proposal referred to the Middle East alone, but the Motion covers a wider area. The President's proposals are clearly of the first importance and we shall appreciate the Minister's reactions to them.
We assume that the Prime Minister will support the proposals because he has also indicated his concern. Mr. Major has suggested a United Nations register of arms sales. This, he argues, would focus attention upon the dangers of allowing great volumes of arms reaching what he calls "unsafe hands". I believe that we should support the Prime Minister while realising that there is a limit to what the United Nations can do and that a register would be only a first step. Mr.
652
Major is in fact saying that during the 1980s too many armaments were sold to a pair of the unsafest hands in the world, namely to Saddam Hussein.
The United Nations, however, managed to co-operate on a major issue of principle during the Gulf war. If there is to be meaningful arms control, there must be a firm accord among the world's main arms suppliers. Who are the world's main arms suppliers? They are the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, namely the Russians, the Americans, the French, the Chinese and this country. Let us mark this well. Between them those five countries sold 87 per cent. of the weapons bought by developing countries in the late 1980s. But surely there is a possibility now that those five countries—and we are one of them—having acted together over the Gulf war can now consider the causes of that war and the mistakes which contributed to it. It is said that China is now the biggest third world supplier, and every possible step must be taken to limit China's activities.
Civilised countries allow or turn a blind eye to the sale of arms for short-term economic advantages. In many cases their intelligence about those who purchase the arms and their intentions is appalling. How otherwise do freedom loving democracies allow arms to fall into the hands of Saddam Hussein and other megalomaniacs? It is encouraging that Japan has recently decided that its overseas aid programme will depend on the military budgets of the recipient countries. That seems to me to be a sensible decision and one which we should consider carefully and perhaps follow.
But while the emphasis of President Bush's proposals is not unnaturally on the Middle East, we must, as the Motion indicates, think of the third world as well. Let us look at some of the figures. First, in 1989 this country exported nearly £2.5 billion worth of military equipment, while new orders to the value of £2 billion were signed. I have already referred to China but I want the House to note that over three-quarters of our arms exports went to the third world in 1989. Poor countries buy these arms while their unhappy people suffer famine and disease. In a speech made last year, Mr. James Grant, the Director of UNICEF, said this:
"The Governments of the developing world as a whole now devote half of their total annual expenditure to the maintenance of the military and the servicing of debt … or more than $400 a year for each family in the developing world".
That state of affairs can only be described as diabolical.
I concede that it is also complex and difficult. I am glad to be able to say that there are aspects of Her Majesty's Government's policies which must be commended. We compare very well with other countries. We have and will, I know, co-operate in disarmament talks. Furthermore, Britain's record on chemical weapons is among the best, if not the best, in the world. Ministers have made statements indicating that Britain will not sell weaponry to South Africa or to countries with records of repression or abuse of human rights.
However, I regret to say that there are also flaws and loopholes. For example, I for one am far from satisfied with the explanations given in this House about the sale of arms to Indonesia, which continues to engage in a repressive war in East Timor. There is no monitoring of the use of the arms once they are there. Although we are told that they will not be used against the unfortunate inhabitants of East Timor, I repeat that there is no monitoring.
There is also concern about the arms contract between British Aerospace and the Chilean army's ordnance factory negotiated by General Pinochet, who is not renowned for his liberal views. The British propulsion units sold to Chile will be used in rockets with a capacity to deliver cluster bombs. Can the noble Earl give an assurance that that weapon will not be sold by Chile to other countries, especially Iraq, which was Chile's largest customer for cluster bombs? Is there a safeguard against that kind of transfer in the contract which was signed by General Pinochet when he visited this country?
That leads to another point which must be made in this de Date, namely that arms sales are shrouded in secrecy. Successive governments have declined to give details of arms export contracts. One can think of some reasons why information should be withheld, but I doubt whether they are valid in present circumstances. We also know that the Government can restrict arms exports through the export licensing procedure and the Export of Goods (Control) Order, but up to now governments have refused to disclose the criteria they apply when granting licences to export.
We also know about the operation of the Defence Export Services Organisation, whose function is to:
"assist British Defence Industries to promote and sell their goods abroad".
DESO comes under the Ministry of Defence but works closely with the DTI and the Export Credits Guarantee Department and is also in close touch with the noble Earl's department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That is broadly the machinery which both promotes and controls the sale of arms from this country and I shall be grateful if the noble Earl Will confirm that.
Is he satisfied that that machinery is adequate to perform its task, namely to prevent arms getting into the wrong hands? Is he satisfied that the Government are aware of all the activities of private arms dealers here in London and are able to ensure that they act within the law? I believe that the public should be given the fullest possible information and that the reasons for secrecy should be made plain.
I understand that the Conference of National Armaments Directors is to be held shortly. That should be an interesting meeting. Can the noble Earl tell us whether the Government will be represented and what message they will have for the directors?
I must refer to the comprehensive test ban treaty and the New York conference last January at which 94 of the 117 countries represented voted in favour of negotiating such a treaty. In our exchanges during Question Time on Monday we welcomed the decision of the French Government to sign the Nuclear
654
Non-Proliferation Treaty and the noble Earl was good enough to say that he would deal with the matter at some length in today's debate. We look forward to hearing what he has to say on the subject.
I have tried to touch upon the main issues which arise from the Motion. I hope that all political parties in this country can agree on a practical policy which would include an international register of arms sales, a ban on sales to countries which would use them for repression or aggression and aid programmes which would be conditional upon a limitation of military budgets. We have only to look at the terrible developing tragedy in Ethiopia today to realise how relevant those elementary conditions are. I hope that that message has also gone home to the Soviet Union, which supplied arms to a wicked, cruel and incompetent dictator who has, thank God, been driven from his country.
At the outbreak of the First World War a cartoon was published showing a little child sitting forlorn under a lowering sky. The caption was:
"I think I hear a child crying".
Today, in this enlightened age, it is not one child we see on television every day crying—in Ethiopia, in Iraq, in Liberia, in the Sudan and in many other places; it is countless thousands of children who are crying, suffering and dying. The words of President Eisenhower, a soldier who knew what arms were about, should be heeded today. He said:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, rocket fired represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed".
It is in that spirit that I urge the Government to take action. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I must start by declaring an interest because I am at present employed by a company which is involved in the defence contracting business, although not in the manufacture of lethal weapons. I hope that your Lordships will agree that my qualifications go a little wider than that because I was for three years the Minister for Defence Procurement and during that time presided over the defence export services organisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, so effectively referred. For a period after that I was a Minister in the Department of Trade responsible for export licensing policy, so I believe that I have some modest contribution to make this afternoon.
I happen to think that, unless my noble friend intends to announce some radical departure from policy this evening, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter is right and proper. It is not our policy to export arms willy-nilly to whomsoever it may be who wants them. The export licensing procedure is strict and onerous and I can assure your Lordships that almost every application of importance—certainly every application of importance as regards arms—is referred to Ministers collectively for a decision. In my experience Ministers often refuse applications even when officials might advise something to the contrary. I therefore believe that we have an effective control upon our arms export business.

655
Having said that, it is right and proper that, following the recent conflict in the Middle East, a further reappraisal should be made of our policy. The recent contribution of President Bush, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also referred, has been an effective contribution to that discussion. The President has called in particular for new and further controls upon weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons —one of the three categories which I believe the President had in mind, the three categories being nuclear weapons, biological weapons and chemical weapons—are governed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been largely successful over the years. We hear that our French friends—one of the few major countries not a signatory to the treaty—are considering whether they could not sign it, and that would be very welcome. Equally, I should like to see Pakistan and India sign that treaty. Apparently, they each say that they will sign it if the other signs it. Perhaps there is some role within the Commonwealth, for example, to try to obtain the signature of both those countries.
Biological weapons are governed by a convention dating, if my memory serves me right, from the mid-1970s. They are comparatively difficult to manufacture—not as difficult as nuclear weapons, but certainly more difficult than chemical weapons. There is a broadly effective convention which governs their use, but I have no doubt that there is scope for improvement and I am wholly in support of the current negotiations and discussions in Geneva and elsewhere to achieve that end.
However, the real danger lies in chemical weapons, which are easy to manufacture. Furthermore, the convention which governs the control and use of chemical weapons dates back to 1925. As your Lordships can perhaps well imagine, that convention is now wholly out of date and almost wholly useless. I hope that the discussions in which the United Kingdom has played such an important part can be taken forward with regard to the chemical weapons convention and brought to a successful conclusion. The key element of such a convention will be enforcement. There have been some useful developments in that regard. As I have said, it is difficult to detect the manufacture of chemical weapons, but some of the proposals made by Her Majesty's Government may contribute to a solution to that problem. I have in mind, for example, the Challenge inspection regime, which is one of the features of the proposals that we made a year or so ago.
More recently, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, indicated his intention to raise the matter at the forthcoming Group of Seven meeting which is to take place here in London in July. One of the key elements of my right honourable friend's ideas—I believe that they are no more than ideas, but they are very welcome ideas at the present time—is a register of major arms sales. I have no difficulty in principle with such a register, but it will be difficult to operate successfully and effectively. I hope that my noble friends and my right honourable friends are
656
considering carefully how that can be achieved. It would be unfortunate if such a register was brought into being but was not effective and only those who wanted to use it did use it, thus deterring or discouraging those who were less honourably inclined.
More recently still, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has talked about restricting credits for the sale of defence equipment to overseas countries. That idea raises more difficult issues to which I can perhaps return in a moment.
The essential fabric of the matter rests upon Article 51 of the United Nations charter, which confers upon every signatory to that charter the right of self-defence. That means the right to acquire the means of defending oneself, the right to acquire the necessary weapons and the right to seek help if that is necessary. That article operated effectively in recent times when Kuwait found itself invaded and called upon other nations to help it. On the other side of the Kuwaiti border lies Saudi Arabia and who can doubt that, had it not taken the necessary steps to arm itself to a large extent, it too would have been invaded by Saddam Hussein once he had reached the southern border of Kuwait?
I referred to Article 51 and the important rights that it confers upon UN signatories. There is therefore a difficulty with the proposal of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about restricting credits. I believe that credits should be granted or not granted on commercial considerations. The question of whether a sale should take place should be decided on the necessary political considerations or, for example, a consideration of the human rights record of the country concerned. The question of whether or not we provide credit for such transactions is a separate one. I do not propose that we should provide credit willy-nilly for those deals, but we should be willing to consider credit applications on the same basis as we do for any other transaction.
I come now to my closing thoughts. It appears that a more rigorous regime one way or another is likely to be agreed in the not too distant future. As a matter of principle, I have no difficulty with that, but it must be a watertight regime which is observed by everyone and not just by those who seek to observe it. When such regimes and embargoes have been applied in the past, they have not been very successful. There has been a mandatory embargo upon South Africa, for example, for a great many years, but the South African armed forces are among the most powerful—indeed, they probably are the most powerful —in the whole of the African continent. So far as many countries are concerned, Iraq has not for some time been provided with lethal weapons —in the case of this country that policy goes back at least 10 years. Yet, as we have seen, Iraq built up the huge, obscene arsenal which was used to such ill effect recently.
Therefore, we must not restrain the legitimate right of responsible nations to make provision for their own defence. That is a right which we take for ourselves, a right which we have defended for others and a right which forms a necessary, if disagreeable, part of the fabric of world order.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in his admirable introduction to the debate the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made the interesting point that the League of Nations attributed to the arms trade the outbreak of the First World War. That must have been one of the reasons why many people between the wars opposed the arms trade simply in principle and would have nothing to do with it. I believe that many people were influenced by a great book written at that time called Merchants of Death by the future Nobel Prize winner Philip Noel-Baker.
Today it must be recorded that few if any governments oppose the arms trade in principle. Vast masses of arms are sold with the condonation, encouragement or direct execution of governments. This Government, like other Western governments, positively approve the sale of arms to our NATO allies and to innumerable other countries which we regard as friendly and non-aggressive. It was a Labour government which established the Defence Exports Sales Department for the purpose of easing the way of the British arms industry with foreign governments. Similar attitudes are held by many other governments in the world.
As we know, that often results in unexpected and disastrous consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to the horrors of the arms trade with Iraq before the Gulf war. But before that time Western arms poured into Iran for defence against the Soviet Union. In the event they were used by Iran against Iraq. Then arms poured into Iraq for use against Iran: instead, they were used to invade Kuwait. American arms have poured into Israel for defence against Arab governments: they have been used for the invasion of Lebanon and for the consolidation of Israel's occupation of Arab lands. It is no wonder that public pressure has been growing for some regulation of the international arms trade.
But it has to be noted that pressures are also growing on the other side—pressure from importing countries to buy the arms and pressure from the world's arms industries to sell. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, pointed out, the end of the Cold War has meant cutbacks and unemployment in the arms industries worldwide. In Britain we think of BAe, Vickers and Rolls-Royce. There is an urgent need for diversification. The Government could help more and I believe that the European Community could also play a c art. The most severe cutbacks are in the Soviet Union. That no doubt explains the desperate drive worldwide of the Soviet Union, without ideological consideration, to sell arms to the world.
In addition, we have the second rank of arms exporting countries: China, Brazil, Argentina and others. They are all desperate for hard currency. All are producing increasingly sophisticated weapons and all are completely uninhibited about whom they sell them to. In April a Soviet official said:
"Unilaterally stopping our sales will not change the situation. The ensuing vacuum will just be filled by other suppliers".
That has been the argument of arms salesmen throughout the centuries but there is truth in it. Quite
658
recently the United States resumed export credits for its arms sales to Europe and the Middle East. This year alone the British Government are subsidising three British arms industry fairs in the Middle East where there is a huge demand now for what are called "combat-tested" weapons. We have them too: the Sea Skuas and the Hunt minesweepers. The Americans have the Patriot. The demand and the desire to supply is fierce.
So while the need for controlling the arms trade is probably clearer than ever, so is the difficulty—I would say the impossibility—of doing so satisfactorily. The best that we can do is to consider whether we can at least limit to some degree the harm done by the arms trade in particular countries, in particular weapons and in particular regions. That seems to be the thinking behind President Bush's proposals to control the arms trade in the Middle East.
Any proposals which might at least limit the degree of destruction which the Israelis and Arabs can inflict on each other—the degree of destruction which one Arab country can inflict on another Arab country—must be welcome. Moreover, it seems sensible to do as President Bush suggested and start by placing the responsibility on the five permanent members of the Security Council who between them are by far the biggest source of arms sales in the world.
It will be difficult. It will be difficult for China to accept the principle of the Bush proposals. It shows no sign whatever of doing so now—quite the contrary. Even if we assume agreement between the five, big difficulties remain. There is the problem of implementation. If the new organisation is to have meaning at all, it must be able to restrict sales to a certain country or countries. But how is that to be implemented? The Bush proposals are silent on the matter. Yet when the Soviet Union refused to sell its SS.23 missiles to Syria, Syria obtained them from North Korea, which had them from China. It is difficult to imagine the Soviet Union or any of the other arms exporting countries continuing to co-operate in an arms control arrangement when that kind of leakage goes on. Yet, studying President Bush's proposals, it is difficult to see how such leakage can be prevented in the world as it is.
There is a second question that one has to ask about the Bush proposals. Can they make progress without progress also towards a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute? Quite apart from its nuclear monopoly, Israel is still the dominant military power in the Middle East. That is why it can reject United Nations resolutions—indeed, reject any United Nations involvement at all in the peace process—and maintain its occupation of Arab lands.
The Bush proposals do not deal with the balance of power in the Middle East and at first sight seem to freeze the existing balance. While it is possible to imagine certain Arab countries co-operating in the initial stages, it is hard to see them continuing to co-operate if no progress is made toward a political settlement. Controlling the arms trade in the Middle East is no substitute for settling the disputes which are driving those countries to arm against each other.

659
There are other initiatives besides the Bush initiative for controlling the arms trade. In the days of the Cold War COCOM was surprisingly effective in restricting the export of advanced military and dual-purpose technology to the communist world. I ask the noble Earl whether it could not now be reorganised to include the Soviet Union and be redirected to prevent that technology from reaching a much wider range of countries.
Most unstable and potentially aggressive countries have plenty of tanks and guns but they do not have the high technology. One of our major aims must be to ensure that they do not obtain it. Perhaps COCOM could be reorganised with that in mind.
Another approach is concerted economic pressure by the G7 countries, the World Bank and the IMF. The Government should warmly support the practice of granting development aid in inverse proportion to the recipient countries' arms purchases. This form of economic imperialism, which I hope that the noble Earl will say he supports, is wholly acceptable and admirable.
So too is the banning of credits. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I believe that concerted banning of credits for arms purchases would be well worthwhile. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government have no inhibitions about those ideas and will work with other major countries to bring them about.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister how the Government assess the work of the Missile Technology Control Group. What is its membership now? Are the Government proposing to develop it? What have been its achievements?
Finally, my noble friends and I have been heartened that the Prime Minister, and—since the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, today—the Labour Party have taken up an idea that we have been plugging for many years; namely, that we should have a public, official, worldwide register of arms sales. We believe that it could best be done under the United Nations auspices. Since much of the arms trade is secret, it would be difficult to compile. However, one hopes it would highlight countries which were building up arms capacity in excess of their needs for defence. It would certainly have highlighted Iraq a few years ago. The problem of restricting sales to such countries would be formidable but not necessarily hopeless. There are pressures that can be used. Such registration would be useful to focus public and diplomatic attention on such countries.
To sum up, control of the arms trade is fiendishly difficult and complex. But the Government must not be discouraged from doing whatever is possible to limit the dangers, scandals and waste that the arms trade creates.
3.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, we are all deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for giving us the opportunity to debate this vital and urgent matter and for the way in which he introduced the debate. His speech was full of compassion and
660
realism. I am also grateful to the two previous speakers. It was good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, with his background of direct experience on the issue of arms exports from this country; and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, with his pessimistic but realistic approach to those issues. I attended today to learn about this urgent and difficult matter, and I believe that we are all doing so.
We have been deeply moved by the appalling pictures from Africa currently on our television screens of the starvation in Ethiopia, Somalia and the Sudan which affects millions of our fellow men, women and children on this planet. But it is good that those pictures are at last appearing, even though we can hardly bear to view them. The hard truth is that they were driven off our screens by the tragic events of the Gulf war. That was why a minority of us were opposed to that military activity in response to the invasion of Kuwait. We knew that all the attention of the world's media would be concentrated on the Gulf and that the millions who face starvation in Africa would be forgotten. I believe that many far from the scene of the Gulf operation were, in effect, sentenced to death at that time by what took place.
Whether or not we like it, the media is enormously important in alerting us to situations of starvation and famine. Those pictures are made even more offensive when one sees tanks and modern aircraft on the same screens in countries where famine occurs. I am bound to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that although there was a deep desire at the time of the Gulf war that it should produce a safer world, that is not what has happened. The effect of the remarkable victory of the coalition forces, armed by the very latest and most sophisticated technological weapons, has meant that many countries desire to obtain whatever quantity they can as quickly as possible. Those countries are in situations of tension in which wars may result.
The pictures of the arming of these third world countries are a real discouragement to people in this country to give to voluntary agencies. Recently we were in Christian Aid Week. An issue raised on doorsteps to those collecting for Christian Aid was, "What is the good of giving to organisations such as yours which are doing work there when we see those countries purchasing large quantities of expensive arms?" We are bound to take that view seriously as a disincentive to giving; though one hopes that people will overcome that particular hummock and will continue to give generously, in the face of desperate need, to bodies such as Christian Aid, CAFOD, Oxfam and Save the Children.
Those countries are inevitably blamed for spending large sums on arms—sums far beyond what many of us regard as legitimate for needs of self defence—yet we know quite honestly that we have played a major part in arming such countries. I am not entirely convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that the control has been as rigorous as has been represented to us today. After all, if I am not mistaken, our defence industries place this country third in the world league in regard to the proportion of gross national product which is spent on defence.

661
That does not mean defence only for our own purposes. As we well know, defence industries in western countries are largely dependent on what they can earn through exports in order to survive and flourish. A great deal has therefore depended on arms exports, which have been actively encouraged by successive British governments.
Nor have we been entirely successful in limiting the sale of arms to regimes under dictatorial governments who have deplorable records and who have engaged in gross abuses of human rights. Chile is one such example.
Unless one takes a consistently pacifist position, one recognises the need and right of countries to self-defence along the lines of the United Nations Charter. But surely there must be limits; and we must observe those limits much more rigorously. What has happened in recent years has produced devastating results in third world countries because the arms have been supplied so generously. That was partly as a result of the competition arising from the Cold War. The ending of the Cold War presents a new opportunity. Various bodies in this country are trying to encourage public opinion to consider that realistically. Many noble Lords will have heard of the 50 per cent. campaign which calls on the British Government to work towards the reduction of arms by 50 per cent. so that the peace dividend gained can be used for more constructive processes both at home and overseas.
Sadly, some arms are necessary in our imperfect world. Those who have spoken have recognised that. However, the trade must surely be regulated as much as possible. When listening to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I was conscious that he knows what he is talking a lout. He struck a very pessimistic note about the possibilities of regulation of the arms trade. I believe that that is right. We must be pessimistic up to a point but, after all, if one is to hit the heights, one must aim for the stars, so to speak. Our target must be high in regard to arms limitation. Therefore, when the Minister winds up the debate I hope that he will speak positive words to us about the policies of Her Majesty's Government in regard to arms limitation. For example, through the Security Council it should be possible to take action actively to reduce the enormous figures which go towards trade in arms and the transfer of technology or dual technology which may be used for military purposes.
Also, it should be possible to work within the European Community for an arms register, which would be much more effective than anything we have seen to date, and to achieve further restrictions. It is good to hear that that proposal has the clear support of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.
I shall not become involved in the discussion about the limitation of credits, but I tend to agree that the limitation of credits must take its part in limiting arms in that way. Further, would it be possible to have published in advance all applications for arms exports? One difficulty about the whole operation is that there are so many people who wish to conduct such business in absolute secrecy. Secrecy is the enemy
662
of effective arms control. If matters can he brought out more into the open, we should stand a much better chance of being more effective on this urgent issue.
If in Britain we manage to achieve an effective reduction in arms exports and, indeed, in the amount of arms which we need ourselves—and there is every sign that the present Government are taking that seriously—then we are faced with major problems of diversification. What do workers in British arms industries do when their jobs begin to disappear? We are already seeing that in our part of the world. Therefore, many people are now calling for a defence diversification agency. We need something much more active, positive and interventionist on such an urgent matter which affects so many people in our community.
Is it true that defence absorbs an estimated one-quarter to one-third of British scientists and engineers working in those industries? That is an enormous figure. Is it true that at least one-quarter of research and development funds go to defence and defence-related industries? Somehow those skills must be transferred into more positive and fruitful avenues for human welfare both at home and abroad, especially abroad. There is something really obscene —and I use that word advisedly—when one looks at how the coalition forces—the international community—responded to the challenge of the Gulf and yet one sees what is happening as regards the present threat of famine in Africa and how pathetically inadequate the response has been. I know that it can be asked how it is possible to work in those countries when there are conditions of lawlessness and civil war making it extraordinarily difficult to transport the food to where it is needed. However, I cannot believe that that work could not be carried out more effectively.
It worries me when I hear government Ministers saying, as Mr. Alan Clark, Defence Secretary said, that the policy which the arms industries adopt is purely a matter for the commercial judgment of' the companies concerned. That is not good enough in the kind of world into which we have now moved. Something much more positive and interventionist is required which will be backed by public opinion in Britain.
Finally, I point to the danger of a double standard when we talk about arms. From time to time one hears talk in this country which gives the impression that it is all right for civilised countries such as this country to have control of nuclear arms but that it is not all right for other people. That is not an argument which will be accepted internationally. If we are calling for arms limitation and arms control and nonproliferation, we must be aware that that applies to us just as it does to other people.
One tragedy of the Gulf war was that although we are deeply grateful for the small number of casualties among the coalition forces, including our own, which resulted from that war, it was fought with extreme violence and there were a large number of casualties, particularly in Iraq. That should make us very cautious of any argument that highly advanced sophisticated arms are all right in the hands of

663
Western countries but not in the hands of others. Arms limitation and control must go right across the board.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I join with those who have congratulated my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition on his choice of topic for today's debate and also on the way in which he introduced it. He set out all the considerations which should affect our thoughts, and he did not waste time dealing with peripheral matters which should not.
After the Second World War my first paid civilian job was to represent the Foreign Office on something called the Arms Working Party of the Exports Committee. That was an interdepartmental committee in Whitehall which had to decide which proposed arms sales to which countries should be permitted and which should not. At that time as far as I can remember there was only one real veto—Spain. There was no veto on exporting arms to Germany in 1947. There was no need for one because Germany was not there: not in a condition to buy any. There was no veto on exporting arms to the Soviet Union, first, because they did not want any—they had more than they wanted—and, secondly, because we were not then at loggerheads with the Soviet Union. Therefore, it was more or less a wide open field. With good consciences we thought we should let anybody export arms anywhere outside Europe because we were not threatened by attack from outside Europe.
In practice, the main problem which we had—and it is still with us—was the export of used weaponry. Of course in 1947 that was 95 per cent. of it. Many Arab countries were extremely interested, as they are still today. At that time they exported quite a lot in the diplomatic bag.
It is a truism of export control policy that we sell arms only to nice people—that is, to the Prime Minister's "safe hands" —namely, to people we think are nice. Others whom we do not think are nice, may think other people are nice and, therefore, it is all right to export arms to them. When one reaches the end of the line among the recipient third world countries, some of whom are thought nice by our country and others of whom are thought nice by other countries whom we do not think are nice, a vicious circle of fear is created. All arms imports are desired because of fear of the arms of a neighbouring country. It is a lucrative and dangerous trade for humanity.
Let us consider how large the trade is. It is said to be the largest in the world. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, gave the standard figures, which are almost unimaginable. Let us consider the range of arms concerned: from the apparently not unvirtuous weapon systems like ground to air missiles and even a Polaris submarine, which is purely and obviously a deterrent, through to the abominable, like nerve gases. They range from weapons which are legal in normal circumstances, such as a pistol, to the unlawful, such as anti-ballistic missiles which break the ABM treaty, to the fatuous, such as the brilliant pebbles which are now being developed. I know that we are talking
664
about arms exports, but the day may come when the export of brilliant pebbles will seem lucrative and desirable in some circles. Beyond that, there are many weapon development programmes which are so secret and so stupid that they never see the light of day at all until it is too late and it suddenly emerges that they have been there all the time and they do the harm that they can.
The arms trade involves not only astronomical amounts of money but astronomical amounts of employment, engineering and research. Indeed, it involves a substantial uptake and distortion of the economies of the countries which engage in it either as exporters or importers.
The impulse behind the trade is almost as overpowering as its scale. Consider the scale of the United States overseas trade deficit and our own growing overseas trade deficit: it is a trade in which it is extremely tempting to engage. All we see are our own citizens better clothed and better fed because they have engaged in the trade (except where television can rectify the balance). Even the ECGD is allowed full play as if weapons were a normal product which should be freely traded between countries.
I should like to diverge for a moment into the economics of the arms industry. It is a matter little discussed. I am not referring to whether it is going well but to the economic nature of weapons production. Many products of an industrial country are useless; that is to say, they do neither good nor harm, they serve no purpose. It may be some do a little harm and some give a little pleasure, and we can all think of examples, but they come out neutral.
A wise economy, national or international, normally concentrates on producing useful goods which will create a clear and positive balance of well-being and contentment among people: goods which will produce more goods and, above all, goods which will produce capital goods. There is only one kind of industrial production created for the purpose of not being used and which while being stored and not used consumes a vast amount of wealth. If ever by mistake it has to be used, it creates death, disease and destruction. It is arms; nothing else is like it. A weapon once built is a minus, whether or not it is used. If it is used it can become a tragic minus on a world scale.
I share most of the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, but pessimism does not absolve us from action. It is obvious that what is needed is a world agreement. I agree with those who have said that it is obvious that the first step towards that is the Prime Minister's register. It is an excellent idea; it has been around for a long time and we hope it can be put together.
The role of regional agreements is difficult to assess. On the one hand, it is common sense that if one wants world agreement and it is difficult to achieve, one should try a regional agreement first because it would be easier. But if a regional agreement can be reached in the Middle East or any other part of the world, it will only sublimate the fears of the individual countries in the region upwards and translate what might otherwise be Egyptian, Israeli or Iraqi fears into

665
Middle Eastern fears. The Middle East is then a bloc for this purpose, facing the rest of the world and afraid of it. It will be particularly afraid of the West—the United States, us and France—and the Soviet Union, should that country ever again become a dynamic power. Therefore the impulse to have an arms trade and to take part in political deals which will permit it will operate at a higher level of aggregation.
We should consider how far we have to go to reach even a regional arrangement in the Middle East. Every time there is a war one's mind turns to a regional disarmament agreement or a regional arms trade agreement. Within six months or so that peters out. We have just experienced quite a showy war. I hope that the effort to reach agreement will continue a bit longer this time. It may, even if it is not related to a global UN plan.
In the meantime we must face the fact that we and other countries are back to normal in our arms exports to the Middle East. The United States exported F15s to Israel within a few weeks of the ceasefire. It is now exporting a big package to the United Arab Emirates. We have just heard how other Middle Eastern countries are soliciting arms from the Soviet Union; I am sure they will obtain them. American action has not made that less likely, and so we continue.
Every week which goes by after the end of the Gulf war before an arms trade agreement or disarmament agreement is signed makes it harder to obtain those necessary agreements. The result of the last two wars in which we have fought—the Falklands and the Gulf —may mean that we shall avoid the idiocies that we in Britain committed before both of them in selling arms to countries which would then use them to kill our own servicemen. I shall never forget the picture of the British destroyer sailing out of the mouth of Portsmouth Harbour for delivery to Argentina accompanied by bands, flags and salutes, which then found a certain use in the Falklands war.
Should only regional agreements be achieved, it will be something. If this debate helps to prevent this country ever again selling weapons to sources which will use them to kill our own forces, it will be something. But that is only the smallest part of the smaller part of what needs to be achieved.
I apologise to later speakers in the debate for the fact that I have to leave for an unavoidable meeting quite soon.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made a powerful and convincing opening speech, as one would expect. It is easy to be purist and to form the view—as I suspect, from what he said, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has—that all arms sales, let alone to developing countries, are wrong; that somehow trade in defence equipment is immoral and that countries should not have the temptation to use arms placed in their way when funds for them could be more suirably used for the benefit of their peoples in much the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, described.
666
I do not believe that we can sensibly afford ourselves the luxury of such a beguilingly attractive attitude. Putting to one side for a moment the perceived needs of those countries which purchase arms, I should like to consider the value of our defence industry to the United Kingdom. Here I too must declare an interest as an adviser to a major defence equipment supplier, although it is a subject which I, like my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, touched on as a Minister.
The plain fact is that the United Kingdom aerospace and defence industry is a military, political, economic and industrial asset of enormous value to the nation. From a military point of view it represents sound value for money, taking account of a whole spectrum of national interests. Perhaps it can best be described as ensuring the wisest expenditure of funds in the national interest—the last three words being the most important.
Technological resilience and the ability to innovate —so crucial in times of conflict as we recently saw —depend on the possession and development of skills which can only be retained by being a design authority with the ability to integrate the many systems involved.
As to the political aspects, it would be a mistake to ignore the role of defence equipment sales as an instrument in the execution of foreign policy and in the exercise of influence. We shall no doubt discuss more fully in the defence debate next week the development of Europe's defence policies. But we should be unwise to ignore the possibility that factors and events affecting the United Kingdom defence industry now will influence the eventual defence industrial balance in Europe and hence the position of the United Kingdom in that balance. Perhaps even more important is this might not a weakening in the United Kingdom's lead companies be perceived in the United States as a weakening of the United Kingdom's national position? Might not that impinge on the special relationship which has stood the test of time so well?
Economic and industrial aspects are similarly important. If there were to be a move to procure off-the-shelf foreign equipment for use by this country, that surely could be expected to have a damaging effect on the national GDP, to degrade the balance of payments, to weaken sterling and ultimately to make the purchase of equipment even less affordable. Add to that the loss of export sales and the situation is made worse.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, touched on employment in the industry. As regards those in this country whose jobs are dependent on defence spending, at a rough figure they number about 1.5 million. That is not a figure to be lightly diminished. It is already diminishing because of the changes that we have seen over the past 18 months or so.
As regards the industrial side, we must recognise the advantage of a sound defence industrial base and one which, among other things, can relieve the need for high stockpiling and additional manning which would otherwise arise and can provide momentum in

667
technological advance through carefully focused research and development expenditure. That is the framework within which our defence industry exists and must compete.
With that in mind, I turn specifically to the noble Lord's Motion. There are a number of key points which any critical approach, such as that which the noble Lord has advocated, should consider. The first is that, despite encouraging trends, for example, in Africa, where long-standing dictatorships have been overthrown—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will have seen on television that those dictatorships were largely equipped with Soviet equipment—the vacuum might be filled from elsewhere. China has been mentioned. It is a major exporter of low-priced defence equipment. Do we want to see its role increased? What of some other players on the world's arms stage which have high technologies at their disposal? I am speaking of Israel and South Africa, to which my noble friend Lord Trefgarne referred. There is also Brazil. How could their exploitation of export markets be controlled? What of the newly industrialised countries which in many cases are developing their own defence industries through technology transfer from the West? I have in mind Singapore, Taiwan and Korea. There is hardly any poverty monopoly there. Are those countries to be prohibited from developing their conventional arms capabilities for self-defence needs?
What of the several third world countries whose military capabilities represent threats to other countries? As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne pointed out, their capacity could perhaps be a force for all kinds of difficulties when it comes to trying to prevent the future expansion of their military strength. Nearer to home one has to consider France, which is a country which is not slow to push for opportunities to supply high-tech weapons. Is it realistic to imagine France becoming more of a world policeman as regards the world's arms sales? Looking at an even greater competitive element so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, do we really see the United States abandoning its foreign military sales scheme, let alone its foreign military finance programme when they are such valuable tools for American foreign policy?
We must be realistic. I have mentioned the United States and France in particular, and they are our allies. They are actively and aggressively pursuing advanced technology defence sales to the Middle East and elsewhere. Both those countries base their policies to a large extent on business. Both their governments have a dialogue with their defence industries. We perhaps go a little the other way and are seen to put policy before business. As I am sure my noble friend Lord Caithness will describe and—it is something to which I, like my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, can most certainly testify—the United Kingdom's current arms export control mechanisms, enforced by the defence export services organisations, with the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry playing their role, are a rigorous, thorough and effective means of arms export control by Her
668
Majesty's Government. Any unilateral increase by Her Majesty's Government in arms export control in the United Kingdom would further undermine opportunities about which others have fewer scruples. Worse than that, I believe that that unilateral increase would undermine further the United Kingdom's defence industrial base.
In closing, I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that, if the national defence equation, both military, political, economic and industrial, is to make best use of the budget and resources available, then it is essential for the defence industry—a highly sophisticated industry at that —to be more fully involved by Her Majesty's Government in the process of analysing the implications of the current international strategic trends and arms export policy. Any reluctance to consult and pool ideas only increases the opportunities for our competitors and does nothing to diminish the understandable theme which underlies the noble Lord's Motion.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I join in the tributes which have been paid to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn for introducing this subject and for the manner in which he did so. I hope that he will be encouraged to try to make it a habit of this House to periodically discuss aspects of the arms trade. It is important that we should do so. I trust that it may become a regular part of our proceedings. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, concerning the decline in public estimation of the arms trade is worth pursuing. He pointed out that at one time before government became involved with it, the private entrepreneur was not a particularly respectable figure if he was engaged in the arms trade. As the noble Lord pointed out, he was called a merchant of death. That was a phrase not confined to Lord Noel-Baker in the remarkable book which he wrote under that title.
The arms trade was regarded as somewhat disreputable. When the spread of arms was carried on throughout the world on a private basis it was thought of as something which decent people did not do. The merchant of death had to be given a tremendous build up by George Bernard Shaw in Man and Superman in order to make the arms dealer a respectable figure so that he could talk on equal terms with ordinary people. The decline which has taken place is that respectable people—we have two of them opposite us at the moment—defend and accept their participation in the arms trade without any sense of guilt at all. Therefore they too are merchants of death at one remove perhaps. It has become a habit.
How has this decline in international morality occurred? The arms trade is not alone. For example, in international law, there has been a decline over what is and what is not permissible in time of war. At one time it was laid down clearly that one should not attack and destroy civilians. Indeed, I recall a booklet, widely distributed among Her Majesty's services at the beginning of the war, which told us what we should do and what we should not do. In pursuance of those instructions it was customary for bombers, when the

669
exact military target could not be found, to bring back their bombs and drop them in the sea to get rid of them. Sometimes they could not get rid of them and the aircraft, with the bombs aboard, blew up. That was the extent to which we regarded civilian life as sacrosanct. But it did not last. We finished up with blockade bombing and the decline into what happened at Dresden. I know people who took part in that procedure who thought that it was a crime.
The decline continued with Hiroshima. We are now full of weapons of mass destruction. As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said, their spread has been brought about chiefly by the five permanent members of the United Nations. They are the merchants of death. They are supplying these arms throughout the world. I wonder if it has occurred to the noble Lord who mentioned the Iran-Iraq war that that war could not halve taken place on the scale that it did if both sides had not been fully armed by one or other—or sometimes more than one—of the permanent members of the Security Council. If that war had not taken place, the Iraqi arms build-up would not have occurred. And without that build-up, the Gulf war itself could not have occurred. In other words, the arms build-up was in itself part of the cause of the Gulf war. It could be argued that the arms build-up was the most important cause of the Gulf war and that the war would not have taken place but for the arms which had been showered upon the Middle East. We start, therefore, from a rather poor base.
As to our own attitude in the matter, it seems that an improvement has taken place. However, what was trumpeted as a prime ministerial initiative was apparently no more than jumping on a passing bandwagon carrying the stars and stripes. It is nice to know that Mr. Major has pacific thoughts. Such gentle musings were certainly foreign to his predecessor. However, to be effective, such thoughts must be followed by action. We need exemplary action. For example, why not lift the veil on arms sales? A couple of days ago, in reply to my Question asking what action the United Nations was taking in respect of a register of arms sales as proposed by the Prime Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who is to answer today's debate, said in a Written Reply:
"A UN Expert Group has been studying ways to improve transparency in the international transfer of conventional arms, including the establishment of a sales register"—[Official Report, 4/6/90; col. WA 35.]
I am glad that the Prime Minister supported it. But let us be clear. It was not his idea. He was supporting something which was already under way, and I am glad that he was. However, how does one improve transparency? One would think that something is either transparent or opaque. But that is not actually so. I do not take offence at the description of improving transparency. In the arms trade things are very opaque indeed. It can be argued that if something becomes more transparent and one can see what is going on—and this is what we are moving towards —then it is possible that we might gradually begin to re-establish a proper attitude to the arms trade which we have lost. It was lost particularly during the Second
670
World War and as a consequence of that war. That is the first step, and as other noble Lords have said, it is a painful and difficult process.
As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn pointed out, when the military chief, General Pinochet, visited this country recently he was told a great deal about our arms trade position which is concealed from this House. I do not know of any reason why General Pinochet should know things which are not known to your Lordships. It is high time that we pulled out the arms trade from the secrecy which it enjoys. The people who are carrying it out know what is going on. The people who do not know what is going on are the legislators and the public. The legislators and the public ought to have at least as square a deal as the arms traders themselves.
We should realise the importance of the arms trade —who is exporting to whom and, even more important, who is re-exporting to whom. It is noteworthy that my noble friend expressed hope that arms exported to Chile would not finish up again in Iraq. However, they have finished up in Iraq in the past and I do not know what hope we have that they will not do so again. It is therefore quite important that the whole of this process should be exposed to the public gaze. I welcome the debate in the hope that it may perhaps lend support to a process which I believe is beginning to gain international support.
We in the Labour Party have said that we will refuse to sell arms to any country for internal repression or external aggression. That is our policy. How will we know? Policies change. Governments are overthrown, as we have discovered painfully in our own experience in the immediate past. One cannot civilise the arms trade. One can sell ploughshares rather than sell swords. But if one sells swords one does not know who they will be used against, by whom, and whether they will be used internally or externally. I do not have much belief in the idea of qualifying the arms trade. One has to expose it and reduce it.
That is the purpose of what we are saying in this debate. Although there are Members of your Lordships' House who may not go the whole way with me in saying that the arms trade is ipso facto evil, many will say, "Yes, at any rate we ought to know what is going on". That is the tenor of our debate.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, reforms in international relations tend, certainly in modern times, to come immediately after wars. It took the First World War to bring together the League of Nations. It took the Second World War to bring together the United Nations, which was on the whole an improvement on the League of Nations. Those of us who looked for an improvement on the United Nations or for some way in which it could be made more effective were rather pessimistic about the kind of war that might be needed before that could happen. In a way we can say that we have been lucky. We have been given a chance to make some reforms in the international affairs of the world at the expense of what, for all its terror and for all its carnage, must in

671
the history of mankind be called a rather small war. We now have that opportunity and it is right that we should take advantage of it. We are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for having instigated this debate.
All countries need armaments for the same reason that all countries need armies and all countries have armies. As it is said, every country has an army, either its own or somebody else's. But we all have too many arms because we all overestimate the amount we need. We all fail to realise that you need fewer armaments to defend yourself than you need to attack somebody and that therefore we do not need to match, weapon for weapon, the people we think may threaten us. So we all have too many arms, particularly the third world. I say the third world particularly because if we are to talk about arms control, we ourselves must set an example and we must not fall into the temptation of thinking that we are nice and that other people are nasty and therefore that we can trust ourselves to behave well.
It is the under-developed world that is the crying example of overexpenditure on arms when these countries need the money for other things like food, and we are among those who supply the arms to them. I understand that the countries which make up the third world and which among them get something like £60 billion in aid a year spend £200 billion a year on armaments. With the famines that are going on in the world and with the ecological deterioration in various parts of the world, that is a sickening figure.
It is not so much a problem of the merchants of death. As has been said, "merchants of death" is a phrase which has gone out of circulation largely because countries have themselves undertaken to become the merchants of death. Andrew Undershaft in Shaw's Major Barbara delivered the armourer's creed, which your Lordships will remember was:
"I will take an order from a good man as cheerfully as from a bad man".
The reverse does not need to be underlined, and unless we put controls on those who sell arms and unless we make a framework in which they can trade responsibly, we are not entitled to believe that the capitalist system will stand back and not sell arms where it can and where it feels that it will get a reasonable profit.
There is one especial reason why I have intervened in this debate today. It is to make a point which I do not think has been made so far. Your Lordships may not think it is a very important point because it is slightly oblique to the question. But I suggest that in the framework which we ask other countries and ourselves to observe in the control of arms there might be a presupposition that we sell only to democracies. That is not to say that democracies do not make war or that they are ipso facto good; but if you are selling to countries which are under the control of their own people, you can in the long run expect rather more responsible behaviour than you can expect from those countries which have been hijacked by dictators or in
672
some other way have become the tools of a small elite or of some other form of government which is not democratic.
If we ask that this respect for democracy should become part of our framework we are moving on to a different plane in terms of international affairs. Some of your Lordships will remember the days when the Council of Europe, which by its organisation is a council made up of democratic countries, expelled Greece from its membership because Greece at that time was under the control of the colonels. If I remember rightly, that was done at the instigation of the Benelux countries, which conducted a campaign for that expulsion. It was a most healthy development, and it was a wonderful moment, as any of your Lordships who were with me at the Council of Europe at the time will remember, when Greece could be readmitted to the council because democracy had been once again restored to that country.
If we were in our military or wider alliances to introduce a respect for democracy as a criterion of the countries whom we trust and with whom we are prepared to deal in this morally difficult and challenging trade we would be taking a step further. I think it would be wrong to give up arms ourselves. The conduct of world affairs does not demand that of individual countries, for the time being anyway; and it would be wrong, if we defend ourselves, to refuse to provide arms for other people who may need them, but this has to be strictly and carefully controlled. An ethical framework has to be set up, and I suggest that a respect for democratic regimes might well be part of that framework.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it would seem that there is only one basic difference in the speeches so far, and it has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur (who I am sorry is not in his place at the moment) and to a lesser extent by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and those who have spoken on this side. That difference is as to whether the arms trade should be considered simply as a normal part of commercial activity or whether it is a special trade that needs particular control and intervention. I hope that the noble Earl who is to wind up will let us know where the Government stand on this issue.
I would take up the argument which was made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and to a lesser extent, as I say, by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that if we accept that the arms trade is simply a branch of our general commercial activity, inevitably we get the consequences which we see today and which we have been seeing for years past—Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Liberia and Ruanda. Third world countries, which we all accept cannot afford that level of armaments, are frequently seduced into buying armaments by a whole range of commercial activities of which I am sure noble Lords are aware. In addition, there is the atavistic desire of certain regimes to arm themselves to the teeth. One then has not only war but also the devastation that leads to famine and to death.

673
It is true that in the countries that I have mentioned the casus belli on each occasion has been internal. However, that is not always the case as regards wars in the third world. Today Mozambique is suffering desperately and has become perhaps the most poverty-stricken country in Africa. It is exporting its poverty through refugees to places such as Malawi. It was the intervention of the South Africans in Mozambique—an intervention that still continues—which led to that form of civil war and of interventionist war. It was the South Africans who first invaded Angola. The Americans supported Savimbi and his movement and have done so ever since. Outside intervention at least exacerbated the internal tensions and led to war, increasing famine and widespread death.
Thirdly in this category I raise an example that was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn; it is the case of Indonesia and East Timor. I hope that in winding up the noble Earl will tell the House openly and frankly where the British Government stand on that conflict: Since 1975 the United Nations has condemned the aggression of Indonesia against East Timor. That aggression continues. We know that Indonesians have obtained arms and defence equipment from western countries. Where do the British Government stand, not in going through the Portuguese but in the supply of arms and defence equipment to Indonesia while Indonesia maintains its aggression against East Timor, which has already led to the deaths of more than 100,000 people?
I wish to remind the House of the quotation with which my noble friend Lord Cledwyn ended his powerful speech. It was a quotation from a speech made by President Eisenhower at the end of his tenure of office in 1953. My noble friend quoted President Eisenhower as pointing out that the manufacture and use of arms was a theft from those who were hungry, cold and destitute. If it was a theft my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is that this is not simply ordinary commercial activity. It is an activity which is a theft from the life-giving goods which could be provided in place of the armaments. It is a theft which causes the death of millions of people and causes the suffering of many more millions.
I extend the speech made by President Eisenhower and I believe that if he were alive today he would do so too. The armaments trade is not merely a theft which is causing famine, hunger, disease and poverty; today it is a theft from the life-support systems on which the future of our planet depends. In particular, it is a theft from the opportunity of the third world to develop its economic systems in such a way as to maintain life without at the same time helping us to destroy the planet.
Surely by now we understand that famine, disease, soil degradation, and all the threats that we have outlined as existing within the environment today, are not bounded by national frontiers. Therefore, the threat that is present today in the development of the third world is a threat to the whole world. The famines that today are being suffered in the third world are equally a threat to life throughout the world. Surely those global effects have become apparent.
674
Perhaps noble Lords have seen the recent United Nations human development report prepared under the auspices of the United Nations development programme whose director is William Draper III. The report was written by a remarkable Pakistani former Finance Minister, Dr. Mahbub ul-Haq. The report deals with matters that are specifically relevant to today's debate. It shows what can be done with a reduction in the armaments programme in the developing and the developed world. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who outlined the difficulties of obtaining international control and regulation of the armaments industry. I know that is difficult, but let us look at what could happen if we could overcome those difficulties.
The report is based on human development and not on the old-fashioned economic development; that is, development in basic literacy, health care, land ownership and income distribution. I have extracted the following figures as being relevant to the debate. The report states that a 3 per cent. cut in the industrial countries' military budget would provide 25 billion dollars per year. If there were also a freezing of military spending in the developing countries a further 10 billion dollars would be added to that. That is the dividend for investment in the future of the 500 million people in the world who today live below the poverty line. It must be remembered that in 10 years there will be another 1,000 million more mouths to feed. That dividend could be used to allow, to enable and to stimulate the developing countries to develop without increasing the degradation of our environment.
In a recent report to the World Bank, Robert McNamara specifically recommended that development aid should now be tied to cuts in the recipients' military budgets. As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn pointed out, the Japanese have already done so. McNamara is recommending that it should be done internationally. In his concluding speech, I ask the noble Earl to say whether the British Government agree on that method of cutting down the wasteful expenditure and provision of arms to developing countries which has brought so much misery, death and threat to the future of our race.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, we have recently discussed the problems of the developing world in a number of debates in this House. The apparently intractable problem of the indebtedness of the South to the North has always played a major part in the discussions. To oversimplify, the debt is not being repaid because too high a proportion of the overseas earnings of many countries is taken up with merely servicing—that is, paying the interest on—the debt. That means that they do not have enough left to pay for essential imports such as oil, machinery, transport, fertilisers, and so on, unless the debt is increased or rescheduled.
Unfortunately, many governments in the South, either covertly or overtly ruled by the military, regard the purchase of arms as the highest priority, even though each purchase subtracts from the development of that country. That point was fully developed by my noble friend Lord Hatch and also by President

675
Eisenhower in the speech which was quoted by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. The world development movement suggests that at least 25 per cent. of total third world debt is due to loans contracted to buy arms. In addition, a considerable proportion of the armaments of developing countries was supplied as aid by the United States, the USSR or China to those whom they regarded as their friends, or were trying to woo.
An especially cruel effect of that form of aid occurs when it is given, usually illicitly, to illegal organisations functioning in or on the borders of countries whose governments the arms-supplying powers wish to destabilise. Recent examples include the support by South Africa for Renamo in Mozambique described by my noble friend Lord Hatch, which has wrecked the economy and the infrastructure of Mozambique. There is also the support of the United States and South Africa for Dr. Jonas Savimbi in Angola, of which I hope we shall see an end. However, we shall have to keep our fingers crossed while waiting to discover whether that agreement will be honoured. There are also the support by the United States for the Contras in Nicaragua and the Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
As an aside, I do not expect that there are many other noble Lords who can recall feeling safer while being overflown by a Soviet-built helicopter gunship as I was when I visited the town of Esteli in Northern Nicaragua in 1986. American armed Contra rebels had fairly recently made a destructive incursion into that part of the country. The helicopters were keeping the Contras at bay.
But it is not the economic burden of military expenditure alone which slows down development. More serious is the damage done by the conflicts which occur, as many noble Lords have pointed out, when the weapons are used. Indeed, not only are many people killed as a direct or indirect result of such conflict, but the agriculture and infrastructure in general—for example, roads, bridges, schools, health services and water supplies—is wrecked. We have all seen how conflict and famine are linked in the Horn of Africa and how they hamper relief efforts. My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs will describe their effects in the next debate.
However, even if we all agree that the end effects of the arms trade are evil, the problems of curtailing and eliminating it are immense. I do not think I need to go into that aspect of the matter because it has been very well described by other speakers and especially by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. All the major powers devote a sizeable part of their economies to arms production the export of "defence" products is a very useful source of foreign exchange. Even Vaclav Havel, whom I quoted in a debate about three months ago as declaring that Czechoslovakia was going to phase out arms sales, has had to succumb to economic necessity. At least two deals involving arms have recently been made with Iran in exchange for oil, and with the United States, and I gather that further plans are afoot.
676
It is very tempting for governments to keep arms industries alive, not only for their own defence but also to prevent unemployment, to maintain exports and, I suggest—as, indeed, other noble Lords have done—to exert influence in the world. In fact, in the United Kingdom the defence industry as such employs directly only 150,000 workers, which is 0.6 per cent. of the total UK workforce. However, although I dispute his figure of 1.5 million, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that a far greater proportion of the workforce is indirectly concerned in the defence industry.
I believe that the people in the defence industry are an especially highly skilled group with a much higher proportion of scientists and engineers engaged in research and development than is the case in any other industry. Many governments of nations which export arms give special assistance to exporters, as noble Lords have pointed out. The United Kingdom is no exception. The Defence Sales Organisation which was the predecessor to DESO (the Defence Export Services Organisation) was set up by the Labour Government in 1966, as was pointed out. This is a cross-party problem. Denis Healey, who was then the Minister of Defence, said:
"While the Government attach the greatest importance to arms control, we must also take what practical steps we can to ensure that this country does not fail to secure its rightful share of this valuable commercial market".
The argument that if we do not sell arms to various virtuous or doubtful regimes around the world someone else will, is unanswerable. Of course Britain is not supposed to sell arms to the real villains. For example, Tim Renton, when he was a Foreign Office Minister, said in 1986:
"We do not supply arms to countries against which there is a mandatory arms embargo or where we believe the items are likely to be used to violate human rights and to attack British forces".
Would that he had been able to enforce that logical, sensible and moral idea! However, as we have heard today in many speeches, that has not been the case, although I believe it is true that the United Kingdom has a better record in this respect than many countries. But it is not easy to ensure, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins said, that arms will not be used for internal repression. As has been pointed out, we sell British naval and military equipment to Indonesia, despite the fact that in 1965 the present regime killed about 500,000 of its own people and between 1975 and 1985 killed or starved something in the region of 100,000 to 200,000 people in East Timor. We do not know the exact number because no one has been able to calculate it.
Ideally, of course, as many speakers have said, international agreements to register and control the arms trade should be made and enforced. A certain amount of progress has been achieved at the United Nations. In 1989 a resolution was passed overwhelmingly in the General Assembly expressing the conviction that,
"arms transfers in all their aspects deserve serious consideration by the international community".
A study group looking at,
"all aspects of international arms transfers",

677
is supposed to report to the United Nations General Assembly later this year. I am sure that the Minister will give us a progress report on that. However, it is much easier to vote for an idealistic principle than to work out an effective notification and control system. I am sure that he will tell us that the United Kingdom supports such measures and is working towards their implementation. Will he also consider the possibility that Britain should take a lead and set an example, unilaterally at first, if need be, to tighten up on military exports over a period of five to 10 years, let us say? In particular loans to pay for such trade should be phased out, as should export guarantees and direct loans to purchasing countries.
The defence industry is already having to contract and diversify, as has been pointed out, because of East/West détente. Today we have heard the further steps that the Options for Change policy will involve. It is not enough to expect the defence industry itself to diversify and contract. A defence diversification agency, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, should be set up to assist in the process of retraining, retooling and finding markets for new products. A detailed plan of how that could be done was drawn up recently by my union (MSF) which the Government would be well advised to study and almost certainly have. A Labour Government will work along these lines so that the highly skilled workers in the defence industry can make products which will help to develop rather than to destroy the people of the third world.
5.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the Leader of the Opposition, for giving us the opportunity to debate this almost perennial but none the less important issue. As he reminded us, it is a subject to which governments have given attention for years and one to which this Government have always attached great importance. It is an issue which has attracted international attention again recently and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part.
Many noble Lords on the Benches opposite, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, seem to have sympathy with the argument that there should be no arms sales whatever. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur called that a "beguilingly attractive attitude." The answer to that argument has been clear for years. It was well stated by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. The United Nations Charter states that all countries have a right to defend themselves. That right is meaningless unless it is accompanied by the right to acquire the means to assure their own defence. Not all countries are arms manufacturers. In fact, the members of the permanent five at the UN—the United States, the Soviet Union, France, China and Britain —account for some 85 per cent. of global arms sales; but therein lies the hope for the future upon which I shall comment in due course.
The Government do not share the view of those who believe that the arms trade is immoral in itself. Our policy is to encourage the export of arms to meet
678
the legitimate defence needs of friendly countries, but we do not export indiscriminately. On the contrary, all proposed arms exports are considered on a case-by-case basis and are subject to stringent licensing procedures. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur that we have every confidence in the operation of our export licensing procedures. They involve close consultation with the MoD, the DTI and the FCO to ensure that any proposed sale meets the strict security, strategic, political and human rights criteria that we apply.
I have no doubt that all your Lordships will agree that weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the ballistic missiles which can deliver them, are our first priority for effective control. We believe that the way forward is to work to strengthen existing non-proliferation regimes, not to attempt to re-invent the wheel by developing new international mechanisms.
To that end the Government are working for further accessions to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In that context, I warmly welcome the decision in principle of the French Government, announced on Monday, to sign the treaty. That will add enormously to its weight. We now look to other states—in particular China—to follow suit. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne mentioned India and Pakistan. We hope they will sign in the near future.
We are also looking closely at the possibilities for strengthening the safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency and continuing to strengthen international export controls, including those on dual-use equipment, capable of being used for both peaceful and military purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked us not to transfer higher technology which can be used in armaments. I have no doubt that your Lordships would support the export of a laser for medical research. But let us not forget that the same machine in the wrong hands could be used for military purposes.
The Government wish to see chemical and biological weapons eradicated from the face of the globe. We are pressing for greater standardisation of controls among members of the Australia Group over chemical weapon precursor chemicals, biological weapon related organisms and related dual purpose equipment. That group should be expanded to cover a wider range of countries, including, we hope, eventually the Soviet Union. We have been working hard to secure the early conclusion of a comprehensive, global and, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne stressed, effectively verifiable chemical weapons convention. We shall use the opportunity presented by the forthcoming Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention to press for improvements in that regime too. But again there are difficulties. There would be unanimity in the House that we should export weed killer or pesticide to a developing country for agricultural purposes. Not a voice would be raised against the sale of taps. There would he positive enthusiasm for education material in the scientific field. But, put all three together and one could have

679
the elements of a chemical weapon. Thus it is clear that it is not just the sale of arms but the verification of the use of such equipment that needs agreement.
Progress must be made too in the strengthening of the Missile Technology Control Regime. The drive to expand membership started in London in 1989 and has been successful in that membership has risen from the initial seven to 16. Our aim is to include all members of the EC, NATO and the European Space Agency. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we need also to include the Soviet Union and China, the two major exporters of ballistic missiles. Iraq's use of ballistic missiles against Saudi Arabia and Israel and their indiscriminate destructive results gives added point to our efforts.
However necessary it is to take action on those weapons of mass destruction we must not forget Iraq's over-run of Kuwait with tanks, artillery, planes and helicopters. Restraint in the international arms trade must be extended to conventional arms as well. Saddam Hussein bought his weapons from East and West, from developed and developing countries alike. Even though since the early 1980s we refused to export any defence equipment which, in our view, could significantly enhance the capability of either Iran or Iraq to prolong or exacerbate their conflict, Saddam Hussein found little difficulty in amassing an arsenal of weapons on a grossly unjustified scale. Other examples around the world are easy to find. To name but one, the purchase by the military government in Burma of a billion dollars worth of weapons from China which they can ill afford can hardly be justified on grounds of urgent defensive need. It is yet another example of mis-government imposed on the long-suffering Burmese people. We will have no part of it. We will sell no weapons to Burma. We are taking an initiative within Europe and hope our example will be followed by all our partners in the European Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, gave examples of other countries. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, that there are many other examples of a disproportionately high percentage of a country's GDP being spent on arms. How many developing countries in Africa and elsewhere receive substantial aid because of poverty and deprivation yet spend their scarce resources on acquiring weapons in ever greater quantities? The former regimes in Ethiopia and Somalia were classic cases.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester reminded the House that he had always been against the actions we took against Iraq because the Horn of Africa would not be on the front pages of the media, as indeed it was not. Nevertheless, the right reverend Prelate will know that the Horn did not leave the front pages of the Government's concern, which I venture to suggest is rather more important than the front pages of the media. During the Gulf crisis my right honourable friend the Minister of State announced a further £30 million of aid from the United Kingdom.
The examples that we have already quoted should give others pause for thought. Of course we cannot
680
expect states to ignore their security and defence needs, but we believe that excessive military expenditure is not a proper use of resources.
At this stage I wish to answer two points that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, put to me. With regard to Chile, I can confirm that the contract between BAe and the Chilean Government for the sale of rocket engines that can carry cluster bombs included a clause specifying that the resale to third parties would require the consent of Her Majesty's Government.
I turn now to Indonesia. Our sales to Indonesia in recent years have involved equipment such as trainer aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that there are no grounds for saying these could be considered suitable for internal repression. On the subject of Indonesia and in particular East Timor, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, sought to widen the debate. I have dealt with the points that he raised in a recent oral Question.
We need international co-operation to prevent a repetition of our experience with Iraq. An important element in our approach is to achieve greater transparency in the arms trade. This meets a concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. The international community needs a mechanism to enable it to monitor the build-up of arms in any one country and, if necessary, to react. It is in this context that on 8th April my right honourable friend the Prime Minister proposed the establishment of a universal register of arms sales to be supervised by the United Nations. That initiative—for that is what it was, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, sought in vain to persuade the House—was immediately endorsed by our partners in the European Community.
We have since pursued the initiative in discussions with other members of the Security Council and with the UN Secretariat, which has formed an expert group that will publish its report shortly. That is why I mentioned earlier that there is hope, because 85 per cent. of global arms sales are accounted for by the five permanent members of the Security Council, notwithstanding the useful overview of the attitude of various countries given by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur.
After the welcome improvement in co-operation between the permanent five in the past year and the excellent news of the further progress made in talks this weekend between the Soviet Union and America with regard to CFE and other matters, this is the grouping best suited for making progress. In addition, I confirm that we expect these issues, including the initiative of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, to be high on the agenda at the forthcoming economic summit in London and later that they will be taken forward constructively at the forthcoming General Assembly.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is very much in the interests of developing countries that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction should be checked and that new regional arms races in conventional weapons should be avoided. In order to avoid just such another build-up in the Middle East,

681
President Bush announced on 29th May an initiative calling for discussion between the five leading arms exporting countries, which, as we all know, happen to be the permanent members of the Security Council. It was aimed at reaching a consensus on mutual restraint in arms transfers to the Middle East. We have warmly welcomed President Bush's announcement and stand ready to join in these talks. On Monday President Mitterrand also showed himself ready to take them forward. We hope the debate can rapidly be expanded to include other major arms exporting countries.
What is encouraging is that, particularly in the West, there is a growing momentum to seize this nettle. We must extend that to all countries. Other institutions can help us in our task. That is why we look to the World Bank and the IMF to take into account levels of military expenditure when assessing economic reform programmes in developing countries. Governments should back them up and indeed alter their policies too. We have done just that in our wish to promote good government.
I can assure your Lordships today that the Government already take military expenditure into account, along with other good government criteria such as sound economic and social policies, human rights, democracy, accountability and administrative competence, when determining our aid policy towards individual countries. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will welcome what I have said. As opposed to our following the Japanese, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, wished, we welcome the recent Japanese decision to follow the lead that we have set in this area. We hope that others will follow suit.
Turning to two specific points that were raised in the course of the debate this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked about a meeting of directors of arms procurement. These are annual events. The next one is to be held in October. I can reassure the noble Lord that we shall attend, as we have done in the past.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur raised an important point. I can assure him that there is a close dialogue among the relevant government departments, including the defence export sales organisation and our defence industries. There will be no question of failing to involve the industry as the various initiatives now on the table are developed. On an issue of such importance government and business must work hand in hand.
This important issue that we have been discussing is one to which we shall undoubtedly return. Clearly it is an issue on which Britain cannot act alone. I took careful note of what all your Lordships said and I also noted that there was still a wide disparity and discrepancy in views on the Benches opposite, which remain as strong as ever.
To be truly effective any regime of restraint in arms transfers must be universal. If Iraq's invasion of Kuwait proves to be the stimulus for a new international determination to co-operate in this sphere, at least some good may result from that tragic conflict.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I may have missed it but did he respond to the calls for a defence diversification agency? It would ensure good thinking and action over moving defence productivity to other fields.
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I did not because the matter will be covered in a debate to be held in your Lordships' House in the near future by somebody from another department who may be better qualified than I to answer the question.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we have had a valuable debate on a subject of the first importance. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate and to noble Lords in all parts of the House for the contributions they have made, with their vast knowledge of the complexities of the subject. We are grateful to the noble Earl for his summary of government policy on all these great issues. It is clear from what he said and from what we know that there are to be several meetings over the next few months— one will be called by President Bush— as well as other talks. These will be reported to the House and I have no doubt that we shall have exchanges on Statements and other debates. Therefore, I shall not tire the House with a further speech but beg leave to withdrawn the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Natural Disasters: International Action
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs rose to call attention to the need to establish a permanent body to concert immediate international action in times of natural disasters; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in 1987 the General Assembly decided to designate the 1990s as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. It laid down a set of goals. The decade secretariat was established at Geneva in close association with the office of the UN Disaster Relief Co-ordinator. In December 1990, the assembly asked the Secretary General to help formulate and implement public information programmes during the decade, to raise awareness of disasters and disaster prevention among the public.
It seems to be a cruel irony that over the past months there has been an almost unprecedented series of disasters in the world, either man-made or coming from natural causes or— as is so often the case— a mixture of both. There have often in the past been sudden and entirely unforeseen tragedies which have struck different countries, but few have affected such a vast number of people as has been the case this year. Indeed, one tragedy has followed on another and each one has been scrupulously portrayed on our television screens. We have seen pictures of the panic-stricken masses in Kuwait and Iraq, the typhoon in Bangladesh and the famine in the Horn of Africa. I believe that the concern of ordinary people who have watched these dramas unfold has remained constant. I do not believe they are affected by what is now called compassion fatigue; but it remains to be decided

683
whether the political will exists among donor governments to try to prevent or to alleviate the misery of people caught up in these disasters. If anything good is to come out of the recent disasters, it must be the lessons learnt about the shortcomings in providing humanitarian aid and the growing recognition that there must be a better way of providing that aid.
In introducing the debate I wish to comment on three aspects of this subject. First, I wish to describe briefly the international reaction to this year's disasters. Secondly, I wish to refer to the long-term avoidance— I use the term avoidance rather than prevention— action that should be taken both by the international community and by the countries that are affected by these disasters to prevent such tragedies occurring in the future. Thirdly, I wish to make some suggestions on how international action can be more immediately and effectively co-ordinated to provide the maximum succour in times of disaster. My third point is most directly focused on the Motion before us.
The three disaster areas I wish to discuss comprise the Gulf, Bangladesh and Africa. I include the Kurdish tragedy in my remarks on the Gulf although it cannot be described as a natural disaster. However, it affected relief operations elsewhere and therefore it influenced the outcome of those operations. Donor countries launched themselves into providing humanitarian assistance to the Kurds fleeing Iraq, even though that assistance was given somewhat tardily. Although the subsequent tragedy of the cyclone in Bangladesh affected a much greater number of people, it did not attract the same level of assistance. Despite the fact that the drought and impending famine in Africa was first reported to the ODA as far back as last September, the countries affected are receiving too little assistance too late. As many as 27 million people face starvation in eight African countries, two-thirds of whom are women and children. However, that tragedy has been overshadowed by the events in the Gulf and Bangladesh. The press has not generated sufficient awareness of the tragedy in Africa, as it did in 1984 when a drought and subsequent famine occurred in the Sahel countries.
There is little doubt that the UN agencies, donor governments and the public have responded to these emergencies. However, it appears these responses have been inadequate. In the first place, donor governments have provided insufficient funds in response to United Nations appeals. Africa needs 5.2 million tonnes of food aid. Some 3.7 million tonnes have been pledged, but only 1.4 million tonnes have arrived. That must mean that insufficient transport and other logistical aid has been provided. It also means that there has been a lack of inter-donor co-ordination.
Such assistance is of particular importance to countries such as Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Sudan and Mozambique as their poverty is profound in the first place. Drought and other natural causes combined with internal conflict are part of the cause of such poverty. However, the burden of debt repayments and plummeting commodity prices are other causes of those nations' poverty. We must question the level of
684
aid given by donor countries. I wish to quote the annual review of the OECD's development aid committee which states:
"The UK has a strong aid administration with lots of experience; and there is an array of institutions that are exceptionally knowledgeable about developing countries. All of which makes it all the more desirable that the British aid effort be increased".
We must appeal to the Government to establish a timetable to try to increase our present level of aid which stands at 0.3 per cent. of GNP and to revert to 0.5 per cent. of GNP. That was the level in 1979. The United Nations has asked for an aid level of 0.7 per cent. of GNP. In the early 1980s our aid budget suffered savage cuts when a certain person's ideological stance was at its height. But surely we could now increase our aid contribution as other rich donor countries have done.
I wish to discuss briefly how the ODA operates in times of disaster. I believe its disaster unit is too small to be able to cope. I know that the staff of that unit which used to comprise four people has now been expanded to nine people. Nevertheless, those people are overworked and are still unable to co-ordinate all the requests for aid and offers of aid at times of crisis. Offers of assistance from doctors, nurses and relief workers around the country have been wasted because the disaster unit's staff have been unable to process those offers.
I believe that it would be useful to establish a mobile emergency volunteer force whereby doctors, engineers and other volunteers could assist in emergencies and could be sent immediately to where they are needed. Such a volunteer force could be structured in much the same way as Mêdecins sans Frontiêres which is a most effective agency. I am sure all of us who have visited the third world countries in which that body operates have admired the services it offers. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the establishment of such an organisation in this country.
It seems extraordinary that the Ministry of Defence does not share the cost of military relief efforts with the ODA. When aircraft were used to assist the Kurdish refugees and when helicopters were sent to Bangladesh, the ODA paid the full cost of the operations. That very much depleted the ODA's budget. I hope the Minister will say why that was the case this year when in 1985 each department shared the cost of the Ethiopian airlift. I believe the German defence ministry recognises the training value of involving the military in civilian disasters. Therefore, the cost of the operations is shared between the military training budget and the aid budget.
The position of the Minister responsible for overseas development is not strong enough. That is why the Labour Party is committed to convert the ODA into a ministry as was the case under the former Labour administration. Such a ministry would be separate from the Foreign Office and it would have a Minister in the Cabinet. Consequently, the Minister would be able to put forward the third world perspective on all Government policies. Therefore, aid and relief policies could be presented in a much stronger way.
I shall now discuss the ways in which the international community could take action to prevent or to avoid disasters taking place. The poverty of the countries which suffer such disasters could be greatly alleviated through debt relief. I know many people hope that the G7 meeting in London to be held in July will approve the Trinidad terms for debt relief. Those terms represent a welcome and urgently needed initiative. I hope the Minister will comment on the Government's view on that matter. It is becoming obvious to everyone that debt servicing is a major cause of impoverishment in third world countries. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that without the resources to build dams, a network of canals, drainage schemes and cyclone shelters, the flood that has occurred in Bangladesh might easily recur within a decade
The debt-impoverished states that are suffering from famine in Africa cannot afford to alleviate that famine by purchasing grain on the international market. As regards Bangladesh, there has been insufficient long-term development aid to prepare for disasters. For example, in view of the constant risk of floods in Bangladesh investment should have been directed to establishing a water economy in the threatened areas, which are always the same areas. Transport of people and goods would then be by water. That would mean that the transport system was not always destroyed by the cyclones and floods. Since floods destroy so many crops in Bangladesh, development aid should have provided irrigation so that crops could be grown in the dry season. Investment should also go into protecting infrastructure which has post-disaster value, such as refuges in cyclone areas, boats and so on.
On my final point relating to co-ordination the question is: do we need a new UN disaster relief agency to co-ordinate international action in times of disaster? There have been press reports that both the Prime Minister and Mrs. Chalker are thinking along those lines. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. However, I believe that there are sufficient systems and structures already in existence. They may need to be rationalised and streamlined, as well as being given more resources and powers, but I do not believe that we need an additional agency.
With regard to Africa, I believe that there is a very real need for the UN Secretary General to re-establish the Office for Emergency Operations in Africa. That was originally set up in January 1985 in response to emergency needs in Africa. It was disbanded in November 1986, but on the understanding that it could be re-established if the need arose. It worked very effectively, with a directorate made up of representatives from UN operational agencies— the United Nations Development Programme, UNICEF, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the WFP—each of which had responsibility for a particular operational sector.
If the excellent report by Mr. Frank Judd of Oxfam — who, I am happy to say, is about to join us on these Benches very soon— of his trip to Mozambique, Ethiopia and Sudan last month is anything to go by,
686
it is essential that that body should be re-established to draw together donor responses, both governmental — UN and European Community— and nongovernmental. Perhaps the Minister could also say what he feels about the re-establishment of the Office for Emergency Operations in Africa.
There are at present five UN agencies which relate to disasters but which unfortunately do not relate sufficiently to each other. There is the World Health Organisation, the United Nations Environment Programme, UNHCR, UNDP and the office of the UN Disaster Relief Co-ordinator. This last, the disaster relief co-ordinator, is seriously underfunded and member governments have not given it sufficient power. It would seem the most appropriate to take the lead in the co-ordination of the work of the other agencies in times of crisis. It is absurd to underfund UN agencies and then to complain that they are not doing a good enough job.
During this UN International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction would it not seem right at least to ask for a review to be undertaken of the present operation of the UN agencies in times of disaster and a report to be made to the Secretary General?
To summarise, I believe that countries suffering the effects of natural disasters can be better assisted by the international community in terms of levels of aid, debt repayment, relief of poverty and better logistics and co-ordination. In addition, more attention should be given to the prevention of disasters.
I hope that we shall not be sidetracked into a debate about a new UN agency. I believe that we have sufficient structures. I believe that the office of the UN Disaster Relief Co-ordinator, which needs increased funding and power, should be able to carry out the role of co-ordinator. If the international community is serious in its wish to see an end to the grievous and, in many cases, unnecessary suffering in the world, such as we have seen in particular in the past few months, and if it has the political will, then the steps that I have mentioned, and others which I am sure will be put forward by other speakers in this debate, can be taken. That will lead to a better way of dealing with natural disasters. I beg to move for Papers.
5.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, before I begin I must check that I am in order. The list of speakers names the Bishop of Chichester whereas it was I, the Bishop of Chester, who put my name down to speak. However, as I am fully robed, I think that I can get away with anything today!
I want to support this plea, which I am sure will be supported from all sides of the House as there cannot be any Member of your Lordships' House who is not concerned about the situation in the world today. A country based on Christian premises must always have a responsibility towards those in need and must respond.
All of us, and particularly in this country, have had to recognise the reality in recent months and the size of the problem that we now face. All of us in our own homes are bombarded with requests and appeals that come through the letterbox with such frequency—

687
sometimes two or three a day. We hardly know which way to turn; but here we have a world in which not only are disasters happening with great frequency but the media are now able to bring them to our homes and our minds with a rapidity which was not possible previously.
That reality urges us towards the plea which the noble Baroness has made. With the vast increase in population in the world, the deforestation of the world and all that is happening, it seems to me that the present disasters are peanuts compared with what will be true in 10, 15 or 20 years' time. The problem is so vast that it cannot be faced either by individual governments or good agencies such as Oxfam or Christian Aid. Thus, some permanent and informed central body which can respond and co-ordinate is of pressing need now. It will be of even greater need in the years to come. Therefore, I support the proposal while recognising the sheer logistical problems of dealing with the situations which occur, and which occur with such suddenness, particularly in the case of natural disasters.
I also want to support the plea because in my view there needs to be an information balance. During the Gulf war the relatives of the people who were caught in the aeroplane which was on the ground in Kuwait at the time of the invasion were counselled by a specialist in Arab affairs. The specialist advised them to stop looking at the 10 o'clock news. The reason for that advice was that the 10 o'clock news is dependent upon the pictures that can be obtained and not upon a balance of information. Therefore he advised them only to listen to the radio because they would find more balanced reporting of the situation.
There should be great sympathy for whatever government are in power in this country at any particular time because the television tends to cause everybody to dance. At the moment the Kurds have gone off the screen, yet their need is still great. It is now Ethiopia. Next week it will be something else. Everyone demands instant and constant action with regard to the different situations that are portrayed on the screen. There is a need for a central agency not only to organise relief but to ensure that balanced information is disseminated.
Which are the most needy parts of the world at the moment? With all respect to television, which has so effectively brought disasters to our awareness, a balanced view cannot be presented through the media. An agency which has the power and ability to communicate and which is recognised by different countries would be able to orientate the way in which aid is given and directed by different nations.
In our country, as in other parts of the world, there are many different relief agencies which seek to co-ordinate activities as far as possible, but there is undoubtedly a need for improvement. It is good that we have many different agencies because they cater for different clientele in gathering funds, but their working together needs care. If it is possible to set up such a body or to develop it from the present disaster relief agencies, I hope that concern will be shown
688
about agency representation. I hope too that there will be ecumenical representation by the churches of the world, for we too are very much involved.
Lastly, I hope that there will be an all-party accord on what needs to be done. Looking at matters now as an observer of such programmes as the 10 o'clock news, it was a great sadness that political points were sometimes made out of what aid had or had not been given. That has led to a lessening of the readiness to support one another. Nevertheless, there has been a magnificent response. Mrs. Chalker is an MP in my diocese and I greatly admire her commitment and tremendous ability to move around the world with compassion, understanding and discernment, but I do not regard her opinion as the only one to consider. It is a great pity that party points were made out of that when we should unite in doing the best that we can. I hope that the setting up of this body would be a means by which all-party representation could be involved in meeting the disasters which occur with such rapidity and which will occur with even greater rapidity in future years. I therefore support the setting up of a permanent body with my heart, my mind and my soul.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I do not know whether it will be an advantage to have a central body such as has been suggested. I do not propose to discuss that aspect of the Motion. I shall take up solely the aspect of the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs relating to the prevention of disasters.
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, I start by saying that we can expect many more disasters, not just in 10 years' time but within those 10 years. They are already occurring in Bangladesh. We can expect them for two major reasons. The first is the continuation and deepening of poverty. Poverty in the world is deepening. In Africa, the continent that I know best, it has become progressively worse over the past 10 years and it is still worsening. Poverty is directly associated with disasters, as we saw in Bangladesh, where the majority of people who lost their lives were in those exposed places because of their poverty. They had come down from the hills to the silt lands and it was because they were trying to eke out a living and to find somewhere to live on the coast that they caught the full force of the disaster. That is simply one instance of the way in which poverty throughout the world can lead to massive disasters. One hardly needs to refer to the great disasters that threaten the African peoples right across that continent, where about 30 million people face famine and death.
We are only just beginning to elucidate and analyse the second cause of major disasters; namely, the effect of the degradation of the environment. There is now little doubt, certainly in the fields of climatology and environmental sciences in which I mix at the end of each week at the University of East Anglia, that disasters such as we have seen in Bangladesh and the strengthening of and increase in the number of hurricanes and cyclones in the Caribbean are directly related to changes in our environmental patterns. We

689
can anticipate without a doubt that there will be many more and probably much greater disasters in future years.
The prospect of those disasters, particularly their environmental aspects, presents us with a great challenge. That knowledge is becoming apparent just at the time when it is most important to attack the poverty of developing countries, but the great challenge is how we attack the poverty without at the same time increasing the environmental risks and menaces. How do we attack the poverty without using more energy? Where is that energy to come from? How can we expect the peoples of the third world to overcome their poverty and develop standards of living which at least maintain life without going along the same road which we have gone along and which, as we have seen, is progressively disastrous for the whole environment? That demands cuts in the way in which our rich, industrialised world uses and misuses the natural resources and elements of our planet. It demands those cuts so that poverty can be attacked in other pins of the world without multiplying projected disasters.
Some 500 million to 600 million people today live in absolute poverty, almost always on marginal or fragile land which has lost or is rapidly losing its productive capacity. There again we see facing us directly the threat of still more massive disasters. As my noble friend pointed out, we now know that the international debt crisis is a major contributory factor. The payment of interest on those debts directly prevents the attack on poverty and the attempt to underpin a new and safer form of life. There is starvation of capital; capital flow has almost dried up. Year by year we see capital, net of aid, being exported from third world countries to rich countries. It is madness that countries that suffer from famine and disaster contribute to our rich world.
But there are other underlying issues which should be brought out in a debate of this kind if we are to see with any clarity the character of the disasters that face us. Because of the inability of much land— acres of land— in third world countries to grow crops or support productivity and production, urbanisation is spreading rapidly. There are 85 countries in the world today with an urban population which is double that of 10 years ago and it is expected that by the end of the century the figures will have more than doubled again. That requires facilities and services— education, health, transport and civic services— in countries which have only just begun to learn how to maintain life itself.
There are other figures which come out of the recent United Nations report. In 1969 the developing countries imported 20 million tonnes of cereals. By 1983 that quantity had trebled. It is estimated that by the end of this century the figure will have risen to 112 million tonnes needed to be imported from the outside world; if not, starvation will inevitably follow.
Those of us who over the past 30 years have been guilty of advising third world governments on lines of economic development which have run into the sand and which, quite frankly, have proved frequently wrong have a responsibility to examine how it is
690
possible for the international community so to shape its economic co-operation in relation to third world countries as to minimise disasters and eventually extirpate them completely.
I am encouraged by the recent report of the United Nations Development Programme on human development. I shall spend the last few minutes of my speech in suggesting that that line of development (together with others that I shall add at the end) gives some hope for reducing the scale of the disasters that we face. We need to concentrate on human development rather than on the capital intensive prestige projects which have been so much a feature of past development and which have brought the necessity for machinery and technical assistance and, above all, have provided very good salaries for Western advisers who are doing little or nothing to alleviate the desperate circumstances of the real poor: the mass of the people in the third world countries.
We need to look at basic education and primary health care. It is appalling to see that in the total aid programmes directed toward the third world today only 0.026 per cent. on average is devoted to the necessities of basic education and primary health care. The Netherlands and Sweden have each decided to provide 0.1 per cent. Perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply to the debate will make some comment on the fact that the British contribution is only 0.028 per cent. That is the aid provision that we provide for basic education and primary health care.
Only one-twelfth of the aid provided to third world countries is marked for the priority human goals. As was mentioned by my noble friend, we are still a long way off the United Nations target in overseas aid of 0.7 per cent. of GDP. Not only that, our aid has declined from over 0.5 per cent. 10 years ago (in 1979) to only 0.3 per cent. today. Of course the Government are right to say that one does not solve every problem just by throwing money at it. But these are resources and it is undoubtedly the case that a reduction in resources means a reduction in the attack on poverty. As the United Nations Development Agency is now doing, one must look at the human development, at such things as basic education and primary health care, as I said. But it is also a matter of land ownership, access to credit, income distribution and grass roots development. It is the grass roots development alone which can offer any hope of preventing disasters in the future.
There have been different periods in which the various features of human problems were recognised as global problems. After the Second World War, agriculture and industrial development were considered to be global problems which had to be tackled in order to raise the standard of living of the poor peoples of the world at least to a standard which would maintain life.
There is also the population problem and the threat of a rapidly rising population which by the end of the century will encompass 6.5 billion people. Now there is an emphasis upon the menace of environmental impoverishment. I suggest — I believe that I am in line with today's thinking— that there are three issues which are inextricably linked: the development of

691
agriculture and industry, the limitation of population (the Indians have shown how it can be done) and the prevention of disasters in the environment. Those three issues are inextricably linked.
In linking them, whether or not it is through a new disaster agency, we must direct all our policies toward that central three-pronged end. If we fail, we lead the way inevitably to desperate poverty and increasing inequalities, which mean even deeper and more frequent disasters in the future.
6 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, anyone who has been moved by the press and television coverage of the recent unparalleled series of disasters must welcome this opportunity to debate whether the world needs a better mechanism to respond to them. I should like to pursue the third point raised by the noble Baroness about the idea of a new body. I am tempted to follow one or two of the other points she raised.
I intervene for personal reasons. From 1981–89 I was chairman of the Disasters Emergency Committee. That is the body which brings together major British charities in joint appeals for overseas disasters, both natural and man-made. During that period we had the earlier appeals for Bangladesh, famine in Africa, and others. I worked closely not only with our own charities but with the ODA disaster unit, the media, some of the international bodies, and so on. That inevitably left certain impressions with me relating to the idea of a new body. However, I emphasise that these are personal reflections only and are in no sense, either officially or unofficially, intended to represent the views of the present members of the Disasters Emergency Committee or any British charities for whom I no longer have the right to speak.
The response of the public to appeals was usually excellent. I was filled with admiration for our aid workers and their partners on the ground whose devotion, dedication, and in many cases heroism, was remarkable. One also has to acknowledge the media. The right reverend Prelate drew attention to one problem which arose from unequal coverage. However, we need also to remember what the media — in particular the medium of television— has done to make people in this country feel genuinely a part of one world and to respond to disasters overseas. I am sure that if one went to other countries one would hear a similar story; yet in aggregate the international response has often been inadequate and insufficiently co-ordinated. In such circumstances it is always tempting to blame somebody else. The Government are always the number one target. It is tempting to blame other governments, the European Community, the United Nations or the machinery— it is always somebody else's fault. It is tempting then to argue that those bodies should change or do more.
I believe that we should consider whether the international community needs a better mechanism for getting its act together. That is quite separate from whether one gives more aid. It relates to whether the existing aid can be better deployed. I am rather more open minded about the idea of a permanent body to
692
co-ordinate international action than was the noble Baroness. However, I hope that I shall not be thought to damn the idea with faint praise if I emphasise three points which need to be kept in mind.
First, although famine and flooding seem endemic in many areas, most disasters are in fact unique and not carbon copies. They call for rapid improvisation by people on the spot with direct knowledge of the area. Certainly there is a part to play in stockpiling relief supplies and maintaining registers of skilled people who are prepared to volunteer to go to an emergency. But anything in the nature of detailed contingency planning will usually turn out to be misplaced and may introduce a predetermined rigidity. Not only does the form of a disaster vary but, more fundamentally, the scope of a local government to respond to it varies. Thus, in some cases relief supplies have to be shipped out. In other cases the need is for money to buy supplies on the spot. That is especially so in the case of a disaster which strikes suddenly, such as an earthquake. Speed and flexibility of response, and not adherence to some predetermined idea, are absolutely crucial.
Secondly, there is very often a political dimension to be taken into account or to be circumvented. The Kurdish refugees are much in our minds. I know that the Motion of the noble Baroness refers to natural disasters but natural and man-made disasters often overlap. Anyone who has been concerned with famine relief in Africa will know how much politics have impeded relief.
With their reputation for humanitarian and non-political stances, the world's charities and the NGOs are often fairly experienced at getting round some of those political difficulties. However, a new international body— particularly if it were under United Nations auspices— would need to avoid being oversensitive or locked into the question of sovereignty and intervention.
Thirdly, and by far the most important point, we must never forget the seamless robe running between disaster prevention, disaster relief and longer term development. Prevention, whether it is by building flood defences or by helping people to grow their own food, must always be better than a cure. In the case of a disaster occurring, an immediate "fire brigade" type of operation is of little point unless it is sustained by continuing relief, rehabilitation and good administration.
That hard slog may be less glamorous to those who are media-driven in their response, but it is just as important. It is important obviously for the unfortunates who are suffering from the effects of a disaster, but it is also important in another way. We sometimes hear about "compassion fatigue". On the whole, there is surprisingly little of that. However, one aspect that might turn donors off is not the frequency of the disasters but the frequency of the same disaster leading to the belief that there is little point in helping because it will only occur again. Thus, what I call continued rehabilitation and development in the role of prevention is absolutely crucial.
I have stressed those points not to argue against a permanent body, on which I am rather open minded,

693
but to caution against the dangers either of setting up an international bureaucracy which would slow decisions, be out of touch with the situation on the ground and rigid in its approach, or of isolating what I have called the fire brigade aspect from sustained rehabilitation and development. There is certainly a need for the former but it must work hand in hand with disaster prevention and longer term rehabilitation and development.
That does not rule out a permanent body— or at least a better organised permanent network of contacts, supplies and registers— for which there may well be a need. However, its role would have to be carefully thought through. Above all, I believe that it should be a bottom-up organisation and not a top-down one. Perhaps the right answer would be to start with either a three wise men type of operation or a round-table conference involving the international agencies, the NGOs and governments to identify the gaps in the present response to disasters before deciding how to plug them.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I support the Motion of my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs and thank her for putting it on the Order Paper. The noble Baroness spoke of global issues, as did my noble friend Lord Hatch. I wish to speak on a much narrower and smaller scale. I regard the desirable business of prevention, mentioned by some speakers, as beyond us. My profession of civil engineering is devoted to harnessing the forces of nature for the use and convenience and man, but not to control them. We do not believe that we can do that.
While both my noble friends are correct in trying to make long term preventive proposals, some of them quite far reaching economically rather than physically, I am sure that the timescale for proposals of that sort is sufficiently long for us to realise that our immediate problem is not prevention, much as that is desirable, but to respond to natural disasters when they happen, as they will continue to happen throughout our lifetime.
Natural disasters require an immediate response. There are already quite a number of agencies, both governmental and charitable, which are geared up to respond correctly. We are all aware of the vast amounts; of money, food, medical supplies, blankets and clothing which can be rushed to the site of a disaster almost immediately or, at any rate, very quickly. While all such ameliorative provisions are necessary and essential, that is not the whole story. A natural disaster is often, almost always, accompanied by a disruption of the physical infrastructure making it extremely difficult for those supplies to be produced at the places and in the amounts that are required.
In the case of earthquakes, cyclones and tidal waves, that is obvious to all. However, it is also true when the victims of a disaster have fled sometimes to a remote or inaccessible part of their own country, as happened in northern Iraq recently. The disaster there has been compounded by the natural flight of the victims. Sometimes, as in Bangladesh and northern Iraq, the army can help to restore the infrastructure or
694
Sometimes even create it. Armies are accustomed to taking their infrastructure with them; it is part of their business. However, that is not always so. Sometimes the army is part of the problem and not the solution.
I turn from the general aspects of the Motion to a narrow and particular aspect. I wish to draw attention to one small British charity, the only business of which lies in the field of restoring or creating the infrastructure. It is known by the acronym RedR. Its title is the Register of Engineers for Disaster Relief. I believe it was founded 11 years ago by a small number of young civil engineers. I assure the right reverend Prelate that it is wholly and entirely non-political in every sense. It has a small office located in the building of the Institution of Civil Engineers on the other side of Parliament Square; it has a register of 400 names. It comprises practising engineers who are prepared to go where required at the request of various United Kingdom and international agencies at a couple of days' notice. Their employers are mainly consulting engineers who are willing to let them go.
Its latest newsletter published in March shows that it had young engineers on assignment in Malawi, Afghanistan, the Sudan, Cambodia, Tigre, India, Nepal and various other places. Since that time, at the request of the ODA, during May it sent, within two days of the request, a team of 17 engineers to northern Iraq and a few days later a second wave of 19 engineers, two of whom were Kurdish engineers with British passports. That kind of immediate response is wholly admirable, but it is on a very small scale. It can touch the edges of a disaster and assist admirably but not in a big way.
The organisation is particularly British. It is run on a shoestring, funded by contributions from the construction industry and the donations which it receives. When volunteers go abroad, they are able to deal with water supply, sewerage, road repairs, the building of roads, bridging, transport management and elementary flood control— the important matters which make habitable refugee camps and which permit supplies to get through to where they are needed.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, knows that RedR works at the request of the agencies and the ODA. It is already international in a small way in that it deals with such United Nations bodies as UNICEF and with one or two European organisations. However, its underlying concept has not yet been internationalised. I believe it is time for that to happen and I hope that that will be part of the concept so well outlined by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the timeliness of her debate and on attracting so many different opinions. Strangely for quite a small number of speakers, we have managed to acquire four or five different views on a possible solution to the problem. One matter on which we are all agreed is that it is difficult to separate man-made from natural disasters because, as my noble friend Lord Hatch indicated, very often the causes of a natural disaster have their roots in man's actions.

695
Therefore, my noble friend and your Lordships will perhaps forgive me if I blur the lines slightly in what I say.
Research and preparation for today's debate was a depressing experience. The world seems to lurch from one calamity to another. We have hardly begun to alleviate the Kurdish problem in Iraq before we are overwhelmed by the need to rescue victims from the floods in Bangladesh, and always waiting in the wings is famine in Africa. That seems to be with us year after year.
The spotlight on these disasters seems to be in the hands of the fastest moving television crew. As it swings, our attention swings with it and is often directed away from an area which is still in need of our attention and help. The improvement in communications, which has brought so many benefits, brings us also a great responsibility; that is, the responsibility of knowledge, including instant awareness of human suffering which, not so long ago, would have been just an horrific story by the time we finally learnt about it.
As the right reverend Prelate said, increasing populations add another dimension to the problem. This growth means that, in any given incident, many more people are likely to be involved. That makes the task of rescue and rehabilitation correspondingly more difficult.
Therefore, there is a need for an organisation capable of quick response to sudden needs to minimise suffering and to start recovery before disease and hunger make the task even harder. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, argues that those on the spot know best what to do. I am sure in many cases that that is so. However, those on the spot may themselves be victims of the disaster and therefore outside help is essential.
Such an organisation would ensure the availability of resources even for less "popular" areas. As we have heard from other speakers, giving may be influenced by religion, politics or, these days, public presentation. Justice demands that even-handedness should at least be attempted. An international organisation could iron out differences of approach and, since it could tap into voluntary as well as statutory sources, it could make better use of both. It would also prevent any one type of disaster suffering as a result of "compassion fatigue" as it was termed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
To an extent the funding of such an arrangement already exists. Most developed countries devote a portion of their wealth to international aid. It is said that the UK contribution is not enough. That may be so but I do not feel that that is an argument for today's debate. The principle of contribution is established and today's debate is concerned with the mechanics of distribution and rescue.
It is physically possible to have such an international force. If we can have a quick response resource for fighting wars— the United Kingdom recently expressed its satisfaction that its future part in NATO is to be that of a quick response force— surely much the same kind of system could be used in the war against disasters.
696
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, gave a most interesting illustration of how expert help can be organised. He gave us an idea of how more specialised help of that kind could be made available. As he said, his RedR organisation is still only known in this country. If it were known on an international scale it would be extremely valuable.
The United Nations is the obvious base for such an exercise. The Gulf War proved that the UN could be a coherent force when required. I understand that there have been criticisms of its international aid efforts so far. Whatever the subsequent criticisms in relation to the Iraqi leadership, during the Gulf War the organisation met the crisis squarely when needed and proved that a world force for peace was not just a pipe dream. I believe that the United Nations could create a world force to fight poverty and human suffering with as much success as it prosecuted the Gulf War.
There would have to be a strategic availability of vital equipment; for example, in every recent crisis the availability of helicopters was a necessity. Whether those disasters were man made or natural the cry was always for helicopters, linked to a planned system for obtaining supplies. Above all the existence of a body whose duty it was to ensure continuity of support even when the event had been pushed out of the headlines, and which could make balanced judgments on the distribution of resources in relation to need rather than media appeal, would help us to develop a truly civilised way of dealing with all disasters, whether natural or man made. I support the Motion of my noble friend; I simply wish it had been even wider.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, like everyone else who has spoken in the debate, I join in expressing thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for initiating this extremely timely discussion. We are all conscious of the terrible conjunction of three great disasters occurring close to each other—the Kurdish refugee problem, the Bangladesh flood and the famine in Africa.
I begin by echoing the words of the right reverend Prelate in regard to the influence of the media, and especially television, on these matters. It is true that natural and man-made disasters have always been with us and always will be. It is equally true, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said, that the scale of these disasters is likely to increase due to modern technology, the depredations of ecological erosion and the population explosion in the world.
The difference the television revolution has made is that these terrible disasters are brought right into our homes. I feel that it is more deeply disturbing than most of us care to admit to be sitting in a comfortable home, eating an ample supper and watching the horrors of the suffering of the victims of these disasters. Fortunately this new experience for the mass of people, certainly in the developed world, has provoked a great awakening of the world's conscience, a huge expansion of private charitable effort and a growth of effort at intergovernmental level. All that is

697
admirable. But today's debate has revealed the need to give more thought to effective co-ordination of all those efforts.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke with great experience of the disaster emergency committee and knows first hand of the problems of ensuring effective co-ordination among the voluntary agencies, all wishing to do the right thing but sometimes getting in each other's way. There is equally a problem of co-ordination at the international level. The right reverend Prelate made a good point about the need for all countries to have machinery to provide more balanced information in order to make sensible judgments about the relative gravity of the various disasters.
It is in relation to the international side that I wish to say a few words. Like the noble Lord, Lord Howie, who made a most interesting speech, I should like to concentrate on what is in the noble Baroness's Motion; that is, the question of creating,
"a permanent body to concert immediate international action".
I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the whole range of problems is a seamless robe. A number of noble Lords spoke generally about aid strategy. But I wish to concentrate on the need for a more effective international ambulance arrangement to deal with disasters when they happen. Seamless robe or not, it is possible to single out the need for a good ambulance service. It is the distinction between organising an effective ambulance service and the wider planning of the health service and preventive medicine.
There is no doubt that the present international ambulance service under the United Nations is inadequate. There is a lack of effective co-ordination among the various United Nations agencies. A number of noble Lords referred to the work of the present Minister for Overseas Development, Mrs. Lynda Chalker. When speaking the other day on the basis of first-hand observation of what was happening in the Middle East she said:
"Some of those agencies— for example, the UN High Commission for Refugees and the International Office for Migration— were getting together for the first time, and the individuals involved had never worked in the same team".
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, mentioned UNDRO, the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation, which has a special responsibility here. According to the resolution by which it was founded, it is supposed to be the focal point in the United Nations system for disaster management. Despite the dedication and hard work of its chief co-ordinator, Mr. Essaffi, it is a pitifully small, understaffed and underfunded organisation. In its last annual report, for 1990, it recorded that it had lost six of its 37 posts in the regular United Nations budget. During the two-year period on which the Secretary General was reporting, UNDRO received extra budgetary contributions from member states amounting to only 47 million dollars, yet it was involved in 117 disaster situations— around one a week. Even with limited
698
resources, UNDRO maintains an emergency transport and warehouse facility at Pisa from which it has mounted large airlift and airdrop operations for emergency relief in Ethiopia and Mozambique.
As regards needing new machinery, I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, more than the noble Baroness. It is a matter which requires serious examination. A starting point may be to see what can be done to build on the existing United Nations disaster relief organisation and whether it could be better equipped to match the magnitude of the task that it faces. Like the noble Baroness who initiated the debate, I was intrigued by the press report that the Prime Minister, converted it is claimed by Mrs. Chalker, wants the Western economic summit in July to adopt a British proposal for a well-funded and effectively organised United Nations disaster relief agency. I hope very much that the Minister can enlighten us about that and confirm the reports tonight. There is a great deal of all-party concern and agreement and there would be a warm welcome for any such British initiative.
As the noble Baroness said, the United Nations has declared the 1990s to be the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. There is a slight Orwellian ring about that. It is typical of some of the rhetoric that comes from the United Nations. Nevertheless, with the ending of the Cold War between the Soviet bloc and the West, the 1990s offer new hope for United Nations effectiveness in a wide variety of activities, including the one on which we are concentrating this evening. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, pertinently pointed out, the United Nations authorised effective collective military action to reverse Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. If it can be done in the military field, perhaps it can also be done in the humanitarian field. One has been encouraged by the fact that in various parts of the third world where previously there has tended to be confrontation between Soviet and Western interests, sometimes even in humanitarian matters, there are now signs that the Soviet Union is becoming much more co-operative in international matters.
The world needs a collective civilian organisation comparable to the military operation that worked so well in Kuwait. It would also need to have a proper and comparable command structure. It would also need to have at its disposal the kind of register of specialists which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, spoke about. The organisation could call on the appropriate specialists because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, each situation is different. It should have stockpiles of relevant supplies that can be quickly brought into use. Above all, helicopters are important in most of these situations.
It would be worth while for the British Government and the international community— I should like to see the British Government take a lead— to search for a more effective United Nations disaster relief agency. If one could find a United Nations civilian Schwarzkopf, that may be useful.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not put down my name to take part in this important debate because I believed that my other commitments would prevent me from being here in time. I am sorry to say that they did not allow me to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. However, what she said has been reflected so clearly in the later speeches which I have heard that I am to an extent consoled.
I do not wish to dwell for long on the causes of disasters. I was very glad to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, and the noble Lord who followed him, acknowledge that the world population problem is perhaps, taken by itself, the greatest single cause of the destruction of the environment which leads to natural disasters.
We have known for some years that the United Nations has had the machinery for attending to this vast and urgent problem. The present Government and their predecessors have done their best to use their influence internationally. I hope that the present Government will intensify their efforts to persuade other countries, including the countries that need help in the matter, to do more to stabilise their populations. Very often it is lack of means or poverty which prevents people from having contraceptives. That is a matter on which I feel the Government can persuade the more powerful countries in the world to do more.
I now turn to the methods of dealing with disasters. We should first consider our own methods and whether they offer good enough examples to the less fortunate countries. We have a very strange and paradoxical situation in this country as regards responsibility for emergencies. Under the Civil Defence Act 1948 and regulations made under it, local authorities are obliged to make preparations for wartime emergencies, but some of them refuse to do so. As regards peacetime emergencies, there is under our legislation very little obligation. There is an obligation to maintain fire and police services, but there is no obligation to plan for disasters, although, paradoxically, many local authorities do so.
For some years I have been president of the National Council for Civil Protection. This is an all-party pressure group drawn from both Houses. In turn it is a member of the co-ordinating group which brings together the association of civil defence authorities, the Institute of Civil Defence and others. The co-ordinating group has been making a very determined attempt during the past year to press the present Government to make the maximum possible contribution towards the international decade for dealing with natural disasters.
I wish to pay tribute to the efforts of my right honourable friend Mrs. Chalker in persuading her colleagues in the Government that we must play an active part in this international decade. I hope that when my noble friend Lord Caithness replies to the debate he will be able to confirm that the Government are determined to play an active part but not in the rather splendidly casual way which we generally adopt. If I may say so in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and my noble friend Lord Caithness, our present methods are much
700
more English than British. We somehow manage to jump to it when we have to, even though we have not prearranged the action that we intend to take.
We have made very substantial contributions to help countries overseas when they have needed our assistance. The Red Cross and other voluntary bodies have also been splendid. However, that is not quite enough. We must make sure that our own internal arrangements for dealing with disasters are improved and are put upon a more logical and standardised basis, and we must also make certain that our contribution towards the relief of international disasters is something which has been fully worked and that the machinery works.
6.40 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for giving us the opportunity to consider how the international community can best respond quickly to natural disasters, wherever they occur in the world. The international community recognises the need to provide relief in a whole range of humanitarian emergencies. The causes of such emergencies can vary widely. There are the natural disasters the most recent of which, and the one we still have in our minds, was the recent cyclone in Bangladesh. There is the emergency following a disaster brought about both by natural circumstances and man-induced civil conflict. We have, and are still witnessing, the results of this in the Horn of Africa. Then there are the purely man-made crises. The most topical example of this is the mass exodus of Iraqis from their own country in the past few months to escape the actions of their own government.
I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, with his great experience, said about the seamless robe linking them together, especially in Africa. However, I propose to concentrate on the first of these, the natural disasters. I do so not because we think international action in the other two is irrelevant or indeed perfect— far from it; these areas also need our attention— but because in her Motion the noble Baroness concentrates on the important area of natural disasters alone.
Before focusing on the international response to any disaster, and following the moral that prevention is better than cure, I should like to spend a moment considering what we can do to mitigate the effect of natural disasters. This is where the aid programme by the major donors is so important. There are many areas in which we can help. I should like to highlight one area— that of the control of population. The figures present a most frightening picture. On average every 10 seconds there are 44 births, but only 17 human deaths. This amounts to an extra million people every four days. This is not only going to put a huge strain on the world's natural resources but, as the population increases, so the area of land needed for each person increases. This in turn will impinge heavily upon agricultural requirements, particularly in the developing countries.
We have already seen that the increase in population of certain developing countries has led to

701
a substantial reduction in afforested areas. Regrettably, in many cases this has not helped, and more often than not it has led to great erosion, the loss of topsoil, a reduced ability to make a living off the same area of land as before, and thus to increased poverty. Without even following the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, down the road of climate change, it is this environmental degradation as well as the increase in the numbers of humans that will heighten the chances of a natural disaster and make combating such a disaster all the more difficult. My noble friend Lord Renton, who I was glad to note contributed to the debate, will be pleased to know that that is why our aid programme is increasingly geared towards family planning.
In 1990 the ODA spent over £21 million on activities directly related to population concerns—a 21 per gent. increase on 1989 expenditure. In addition, most maternal, child health and women's education programmes contribute to reducing population growth. We shall continue to use all possibilities to extend the availability of family planning advice and assistance. On 13th May my right honourable friend the Minister of State announced increased assistance for the. three multilateral population programmes. Furthermore, we can only but welcome the increased use of environmental impact assessments in aid projects by major donors and this is an area in which we are working hard to achieve a greater continuity of approach between the major donors.
More specifically, through aid one can provide special measures to help in the event of an emergency. Your Lordships will recall that in our exchanges on the Statement on Bangladesh on 8th May, I told the House .hat the EC is due to complete a study of flood protection measures later this year and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, quite rightly raised the matter again today. The present indications are that it would recommend a series of structural solutions and we wish to make sure that what lessons can be learnt from the recent disaster are also taken into account. We are also working with the Bangladeshis on a bilateral basis to help in farming methods and flood control to enhance protection against natural disasters.
Such measures can be extremely beneficial but will never prevent a natural disaster. When one does happen. the responsibility lies primarily with the authorities of the country affected. But where their resources are overwhelmed, either on account of their poverty or on account of the sheer scale of the disaster, public opinion has rightly come to expect a rapid and effective response. It is absolutely right for the affected country to turn to other countries and to the multi-lateral agencies for appropriate and properly co-ordinated help.
Before looking to the future, it is important to see what organisations are in place at the moment. The first place to look is clearly to the United Nations. The same arguments that your Lordships have put forward today are similar to those which led to the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation (UNDRO) being mandated 20 years ago, in 1971, to mobilise, direct and co-ordinate UN emergency relief
702
and to co-ordinate with other non-UN agencies. It was also given the brief to study, prevent, control and predict natural disasters and is headed by a disaster relief co-ordinator reporting directly to the Secretary General. It occurred to me that this organisation bears a marked similarity to that which the right reverend Prelate wanted to be set up.
UNDRO is funded by donors, international appeals and from the UN regular budget, which in 1990 contributed about 8 million dollars. Of that the UK share is 1.2 million dollars, equating to 15 per cent. In addition, there is an emergency fund of 250,000 dollars. It has a staff of 27 based in Geneva, of whom 10 are assigned to disaster relief co-ordination. It can acquire extra staff as necessary by hiring experts on a temporary basis or recruiting personnel from the UN. It also has a warehouse in Pisa where WHO has stored 700,000 dollars worth of medical supplies for emergencies. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, rightly pointed out that it is the need to get the aid promptly to where it is required that is also important. That can be a massive logistical problem as natural disasters often occur in inaccessible areas and in the aftermath the conditions make access difficult.
The noble Baroness particularly mentioned helicopters, as did the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. Your Lordships will recall that on 8th May, on the Statement on Bangladesh, I told the House that the "Fort Grange" was on its way to play a vital role in Bangladesh and that helicopters were aboard. Alas, I have to report that because of adverse weather conditions one of the helicopters had to be ditched. Thankfully there was no loss of life. I am sure the House would like to join with me in offering praise and gratitude to the dedication and bravery of all those serving on the "Fort Grange".
UNDRO, despite the very limited funds available to it, plays a major part in distributing information on appeals and funding. But it is true that in practice UNDRO has not been able to fully carry out its mandate because of weaknesses in co-ordination, supply of information and provision of expertise. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, that is undoubtedly an area which needs to be looked at with the greatest care in order to ensure the best and quickest response to any disaster. The fact that the work of UNDRO is not as well known to your Lordships as it should be is a salutary comment on its profile.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, that it is right to separate the role of the organisation from its funding. Therefore, we question the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on whether the office for emergency relief in Africa should be re-established. Her Majesty's Government were strong supporters of the original and very successful office for emergency operations in Africa. Its lessons were learned and are still being used and developed by United Nations agencies in this field. Re-establishment of the office itself is not a guarantee of massive improvements in performance. Although we do not rule out the revival of the office we must be sure that it can fill a need that cannot be met by an existing body, so as to avoid duplication.

703
There are two other United Nations agencies that I should like to mention in this context. One is the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) which was mandated in 1951 to provide all types of assistance to refugees who had crossed international boundaries. Its administrative costs are financed from the United Nations regular budget and it has specific appeals for each major emergency. It too is based in Geneva and has about 600 staff: it can acquire extra specialist help as and when necessary.
The other UN organisation which is particularly well known to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, because she is its president, is UNICEF. This was founded in 1946 to provide emergency relief to children in war-ravaged countries and its mandate was extended in 1953 to embrace development assistance such as child health and welfare. As I said, we hope that UNICEF will increase its mandate further to include family planning, for the reasons which I set out earlier.
In addition to government and UN bodies, an invaluable contribution is also made to international efforts by humanitarian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Save the Children and Oxfam, almost invariably in co-operation with the United Nations. They bring not only substantial resources but real expertise drawn from their long experience with development work in the countries concerned. Also, I should not fail to mention the important part played by the Red Cross movement, notably by the International Committee of the Red Cross, in situations of conflict, and by the British Red Cross and other national societies in association with the League of Red Cross Associations. There are many others who do good work. The House benefited from the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who described one NGO involving engineers who are doing such an important but often unsung job.
It will be clear that a large number of agencies, governmental and non-governmental, are involved in disaster relief. Each has its separate and particular strengths, mandate and capacity to secure resources. Co-operation between them is well established both in the field and in Geneva but, following many of your Lordships' comments, one must question whether the system is working as effectively as it should. We fully recognise the need to continuously improve co-operation in order to make the best use of limited resources.
The international community faces an enormous challenge in responding to global disasters. Over the last three months we have seen the conjunction of three major disasters: worsening famine in Africa, the Iraqi refugee crisis and the cyclone which devastated parts of Bangladesh. This unique situation strained the resources of bilateral and international aid agencies alike. However, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, say that despite these pressures, compassion fatigue had not yet set in. Clearly, Britain's own response was both swift and effective, but we are concerned to ensure that our systems and resources keep pace with the demands
704
placed upon us by natural and other disasters. This is a high priority for the Government, which we are addressing urgently.
There are undoubtedly lessons to be learned. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear on 10th May in a speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference that we wish to put proposals forward in due course that will change the way the United Nations tackles these responsibilities. We are working from the base that we wish to see the United Nations retain its present leading role in multilateral disaster relief.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, we do not believe that there is need for a further new agency. It is more a question of getting the existing system to work better. We therefore hope that further steps can be taken to improve not only co-ordination within the UN system and co-operation with other agencies but also consultation and liaison with donor countries such as Britain. We are in regular contact with other donors and with recipient countries, together of course with the UN and the NGOs. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had talks yesterday with Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, the executive delegate in charge of the United Nations humanitarian operation in Iraq.
I should now like to move closer to home and tell the House more about the actions we have already taken. Following the Iraqi refugee crisis, which presented almost unique problems in terms of the delivery of emergency assistance, my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development commissioned an ODA study to examine the United Kingdom's emergency aid arrangements. Again, the main purpose of the review will be to find ways of improving both the speed and effectiveness of UK disaster relief.
There is always room for improvement in this important area. One proposal the ODA will be looking at is the development of a permanent register of volunteers who can be sent out to disasters at very short notice. In the case of the Iraqi refugee crisis, the ODA sent out volunteer teams comprising engineers, doctors, nurses, civil emergency specialists and many others with experience of emergency aid operations. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that these mobile support teams are doing an outstanding job in northern Iraq. We hope to build on their success for future operations.
This is just one example of the aspects of disaster management that the ODA is now reviewing. There are many others, and we hope to announce the outcome of the study as soon as possible. In addition to our reviews of the United Nations system and of the ODA's own disaster relief arrangements, we are also looking at how the European Community approaches this activity. It surprised me that not even the spokesman from the Liberal Front Bench managed to introduce the European Community into this debate. It is important, as I know the noble Lord understands. It is clearly important that the Community undertakes a properly co-ordinated disaster aid delivery system which complements rather than duplicates what other donors do.

705
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this most timely debate. I can assure the House that the Government will take full account of the views that have been expressed in developing their ideas and proposals in connection with this subject. When they are further advanced, we shall wish to explain them in further detail.
6.57 p m.
Bareness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. We have been most fortunate to be able to benefit from the great experience of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Thomson. Their appraisal and the suggestions they made for possible changes were of great value. I am also glad that every speaker mentioned what I feel is such an enormously important part of this subject; that is, the prevention —I tend to use the word "avoidance"—of the disasters seen in recent months. The importance of our aid programmes cannot be overstated in trying to help countries which are constantly threatened by drought, climatic disasters, floods and cyclones. I am very happy that all speakers should have agreed on the importance of such programmes.
I was happy to hear the Minister talk about a British aid programme which involves population control. That has a very important part to play. I was not quite so pleased that he singled out UNICEF for particular comment, not in admiration of its work in primary health care and education but more concerned with its keeping out of the family planning sector. I do not think he was entirely right. UNICEF carries out its own family planning policies through health education for women, pointing out the health risks of big families both to the mothers and the children. That is one way in which UNICEF very successfully carries out its role in population planning.
I was sorry that the noble Earl did not feel that the Office for Emergency Relief in Africa should be brought back. It did serve a very valuable purpose when it was first needed in 1985, and I should have thought that the impending disaster in Africa is even worse now than conditions were in 1985. I agree with the noble Earl that there must be some overall co-ordination. However, that particular structure worked at that time and it is not being replaced in Africa at the moment. I am not sure that I agree with what the noble Earl said.
I was happy that the Minister agreed that there are various structures and machineries within the UN system. He talked about UNDRO and described its function. He agreed that its structure was not strong enough. I said that it appeared to be the obvious lead agency because of its very name. It has not been given the funding or the power and it would appear from the Minister's remarks that recently they have been reduced even more. The organisation should be strengthened and given more power and responsibility by member governments in order to fulfil a stronger role.
I am grateful to the Minister for a good response to the debate. We look forward to hearing more specific descriptions of what the Prime Minister has tantalized
706
us with so far. We have greater confidence that the matter will be taken more seriously by the British Government. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill
7 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Rea.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD SKELMERSDALE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Sale of unpackaged cigarettes]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon:I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question, That Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill. The Bill is entitled "Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill". As far as I am aware nobody opposes the measures contained in the Bill which are intended to ensure that the law relating to the sale of cigarettes to children and young people should be strictly complied with.
The law is strengthened by Clauses 1 and 2. The maximum penalty for non-compliance is raised to £2,500. That is more than a sixfold increase on the present penalty of £400. The law is strengthened and the penalty is increased for the sale of any form of tobacco to children and young persons, be it a packet of cigarettes or a single cigarette. Furthermore, the penalty remains the same at a maximum of £2,500 whether a packet of 10 or more cigarettes or a single cigarette is sold. Children and young people are therefore fully protected by Clauses 1 and 2: no additional protection is given by Clause 3.
Accordingly, the purpose of Clause 3 is not and cannot be to increase the protection for children and young persons. If it is not to protect children and young persons the clause can be aimed only at restricting the sale of cigarettes to adults unless in packaged multiples of 10 or more. It is quite clear that, under the cloak of this Bill, the opportunity is being taken to interfere with the freedom of a person selling cigarettes to sell to a customer the quantity of cigarettes that the latter desires. Such interference is quite unnecessary for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the Bill. It reveals that the real objective of the clause is to give another twist to the ratchet of complete abolition.
It is incredible that we should be contemplating legislation that will impose a fine of £1,000 on a tobacconist who dares to open a packet of cigarettes in order to sell one to an adult who may be a poor old tramp or someone who has fallen on hard times and who, though his only comfort in life is a cigarette, can afford to buy them only occasionally and one at a time. I really wonder what the hell we are doing! I do

707
not know what this country is coming to. I find it difficult to understand what has come over Parliament when it allows itself to be bullied by a smug, virulent and self-appointed lobby which seems less concerned with health than with stigmatising people who wish to smoke as being anti-social. It hounds and abuses them even to the point of denying them their basic rights and in many cases puts their jobs at risk.
What I find strange about Clause 3 is the Government's about-turn on the issue. On 13th February 1991 in Committee in another place, the Minister, Mr. Lloyd, stated at col. 100 of the report of Standing Committee C:
"As I have told the honourable Member for Warley East on many occasions, I do not think Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill. It is a piece of self-indulgent, rhetorical legislation that we should eschew".
I could not have done any better myself. Nothing could be more forthright and correct than the Minister's comment. His opposition to the clause was so absolute that one can assume only that it was dropped as a result of some deal done between the Government and the Bill's promoters.
When my noble friend Lord Rea wound up the Second Reading debate he accused me of launching into what was almost a tirade of paranoid fantasy. I suppose that the use of the word "almost" softened his accusation from being positively insulting to being simply downright rude—
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: He is your noble friend!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: He still is. However, I must tell my noble friend that it is not I who am paranoid about smoking but those who indulge in a witch-hunting crusade against smokers. Indeed, so unparanoid am I about the subject that, as a non-smoker, I am perfectly happy to have the occasional cigar enjoyed in my presence without any complaint from me.
It may well be that this evening I am a lone voice in opposing the clause. Even the tobacco companies are not advising opposition, thereby making strange bedfellows. My anxiety is about individual liberty and freedom in this instance. The clause is yet another infringement of such freedom and liberty. Even at this stage I should appreciate it if my noble friend were to withdraw the clause.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may put forward the Government's position. We were disappointed, but not surprised, to discover that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, had tabled an amendment to leave Clause 3 out of the Bill. I was not surprised because the noble Lord had made his position absolutely clear during the debate on Second Reading. He said that he did not like some of the aspects of the Bill and that he would table amendments. The noble Lord was a lone voice; the many excellent speeches made from both sides of the Chamber on Second Reading were not in agreement with him—I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I am happy for him to do so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I must point out that I was not a lone
708
voice on Second Reading; indeed, my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe joined me in saying some words which were not of comfort in regard to the Bill.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I should rephrase my remark. I think I can say that not everyone agreed with all parts of the noble Lord's speech. I believe that even the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, did not agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said.
It is true to say that Clause 3 has had a chequered history. Unlike many of the other clauses, this clause has been in the Bill from the outset. It only managed to survive in the Bill when it was considered in Committee in another place by virtue of the casting vote of the chairman. Initially, the Government were not in favour of this clause. As Members of the Committee know, selling cigarettes to children, whether singly or in packets, is already an offence. Clause 3, therefore, at least partly duplicates the present law. It was primarily for this reason that the Government did not support the clause originally.
However, the Government listened carefully to the strong arguments eloquently expressed by the supporters of this clause in both Houses. We also listened to the representations from local organisations and members of the public about the importance of keeping it in the Bill. Those factors, and one other, persuaded the Government that they should withdraw their opposition to the clause. The deciding factor was that this clause has the full support of the Minister at the Department of Health who is responsible for smoking and the Government's own Chief Medical Officer.
Opponents of this clause argue that it has nothing to do with protecting children from tobacco and that it simply impinges on the rights of adults to buy cigarettes singly. That argument does have some logic. But there is no evidence whatever to show that there are large numbers of adults across the country who buy cigarettes in ones or twos and whose rights would be infringed by this clause. I am told that even the custom of adults buying one or two cigarettes in a restaurant or hotel after a meal is no longer common as they are now generally offered free, courtesy of the management.
Equally, I have to acknowledge that there is no evidence that large numbers of children buy cigarettes other than in packs of 10 or 20. Research commissioned by the Department of Health in 1988 showed that only 2 per cent. of children under 16 bought cigarettes in numbers fewer than 10. Nevertheless, the sale of single cigarettes to children is a problem. It kick-starts the smoking habit and can lead to a life of addiction and disease.
The Government accept that it is important to get the message across to retailers that selling cigarettes to young children in ones and twos is just as reprehensible and unlawful as selling them in packs of 10 or 20. The clause reinforces that message and makes it explicit that selling single or loose cigarettes is an offence. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will recognise that this is not a draconian measure designed specifically to curtail the

709
rights of adult smokers. Its primary purpose is to protect children by ensuring that retailers realise the consequences of selling single cigarettes to them.
The Bill in its present form has the full support of the Government and of the Opposition parties. It has also been accepted by the tobacco industry and is not opposed by the retail trade. Therefore, I must say that I find it extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, should seek to go out on a limb and try to reduce its effectiveness by attempting to remove Clause 3. I invite the noble Lord not to divide the Committee on the matter.
Lord Rea: I shall try to answer some of the points raised by my noble friend. However, I should stress first that he is still my noble friend. He livens up the proceedings in this Chamber. Sometimes we need people like him to shake us out of our lethargy. Perhaps I may reiterate some of the reasons why Clause 3 is included in the Bill. As the Minister said, children are the only ones who buy single cigarettes. There is now no demand from adults, even if they are poor old tramps, for those pre-war packets of two Woodbines. Moreover, no evidence has been produced by the tobacco industry which shows that there is a demand for single cigarettes as was the case before the war.
It is only children who cannot afford to buy a packet of 10 cigarettes. They are the only people who have very small amounts of money and need to obtain cigarettes in that way. But in effect, as the noble Viscount said. the sale of single cigarettes hooks them on to the habit in the same way as a small dose of cocaine or heroin can start off a lifetime's drug habit. In fact, nicotine is a highly addictive substance.
Members of the Committee may be interested to know the results of a survey carried out in Bristol last year by Martin Jarvis of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund's Health Behaviour Unit and Ann McNeill of the Addiction Research Unit at the Institute of Psychiatry. They studied the behaviour of 3,500 children aged from nine to 16 years. Their research revealed that of the children who smoked six or more cigarettes per week—that is, those who were already beginning to get into the habit of smoking—52 per cent. had bought cigarettes singly. Indeed, in one school 80 per cent. had done so.
Another finding of importance in that study was that working-class children were twice as likely to buy cigarettes singly as were children from middle-class families That is important because it is the persistence of the smoking habit among social classes 3, 4 and 5 that is largely the reason why heart disease and cancer of the lung are now commoner in our working popular on. Therefore, although it may be true that only a small proportion of all cigarettes—indeed, the Minister said 2 per cent.—are bought by children, quite a high proportion of children destined to become smokers had at one time or another bought cigarettes singly.
The high fines in the clause to which my noble friend objects can, I suggest, help shopkeepers to resist the demands of children. Shopkeepers can tell children that selling them single cigarettes makes shopkeepers liable to a fine of £3,500. I believe that that might
710
impress a few children as to the seriousness of the offence. However, I accept the fact that many others might not be deterred.
Other members of the Committee may wish to say a few words. In conclusion, therefore, I should say that I am convinced that this clause is an important part of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that this clause is an important part of the Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, seeks to divide the Committee on the matter, I hope that his bid to remove the clause will be defeated. The purpose of the clause is wholly consistent—though he suggested the contrary—with the general purpose of the Bill; namely, to protect children from smoking.
There is evidence—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to the Jarvis inquiry carried out in Bristol—to show that in a certain number of cases, at any rate, a child starts smoking by buying one or two cigarettes separately. That is partly because it is all that he can afford and partly, perhaps, because he does not want to have a bulky packet of cigarettes which his elders and betters can see and consequently confiscate.
It is undoubtedly the view of those who have studied the matter that the purchase of single, or two, cigarettes by children is quite a substantial factor in getting children hooked on smoking. That being plainly the fact, I suggest that it would be very wrong if this Chamber were to reject a provision of the Bill which is designed to prevent children being led down the path of smoking.
There is a further point. There is a health warning on a cigarette packet. I have no doubt that some people will study it and may even be deterred by it. If one buys a single cigarette, there is no health warning attached and one is thereby deprived of the advantage which Parliament in its wisdom has determined that potential tobacco purchasers should have. That is a further reason why we should try to prevent the sale of separate cigarettes. No harm will be done to those who want to smoke if they have to buy a packet. The great majority of people already do.
A minority of young people, on all the evidence, start on the path of smoking by buying one cigarette. I welcome the clause, as I welcome the Bill, as helping to prevent that happening. I remind the Committee that in the Green Paper The Health of the Nation which was published yesterday it is strongly stated that the objective is to reduce death and ill health caused by smoking by reducing the number of people who start to smoke and increasing the number who stop smoking. If the Committee were to take the clause out of the Bill, it would be going back on that clear statement of policy and doing something which I do not believe that any us want to do—to make it a little easier for children to start a habit which can so often end for them in disease and death.
Lord Airedale: As so often happens, one finds that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has covered

711
the subject so fully and taken all the points that it leaves little for anyone else to say without tedious repetition. I shall say a few words only about the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, on the infringement of liberty. I remember some time ago the second Earl of Avon standing at that Dispatch Box piloting through the House the Bill introducing the compulsory use of seat belts in motor cars. He was confronted by the infringement of human liberty argument. I remember him asking how far that argument should be carried. Does one claim liberty to drive one's car on the right-hand side of the road, for instance? It is nonsense to carry the argument to any length. We must all accept some restraint on what we may do in the interests of the community; otherwise it is the law of the jungle. I hope that that argument will not prevail and that the Committee will agree to Clause 3.
Lord McNair: I oppose the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that the practice of selling single cigarettes should be outlawed in the interests of preventing as many children as possible from becoming addicted. Adults who are so addicted can generally afford a whole packet, although I heard recently of a judge who, because he was banned from smoking at home by his wife, tried to buy single cigarettes from the jurors at court. That is an exception. Research shows that there is a clear correlation between the purchase of single cigarettes and addiction. I urge the Committee to oppose the amendment.
Lord Carter: I shall indulge in a moment or two of reminiscence. From the age of eight until 18, when I went off to the army, I lived in a small confectioner and tobacconist shop and served behind the counter. We talk of Sunday trading. The shop was open 365 days a year. It closed at 4 p.m. on Christmas Day. I have sold many cigarettes. The Committee will remember Player's Weights and Wills' Woodbines, which were sold in packets of five and from open-top tins. We sold many single cigarettes. They cost one old penny each. That was over 40 years ago. I often wonder how many cancer victims started smoking with the single cigarettes that I sold them. Unfortunately we sold cigarettes to children because they told us that they were purchasing them for their parents.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart has made some valuable points but not enough to warrant the dismissal of Clause 3. It is a belt-and-braces, declaratory clause, but it is none the worse for that. Arguments in support of the freedom of the individual are always persuasive. My noble friend expressed them powerfully, as he always does. However, in all those arguments there is always a balance to be struck as between the freedom of the individual and the interests of society. I am clear that in this case the balance of the argument lies with my noble friend Lord Rea.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I realise that I have no right to reply, but this is a Committee stage. Everyone
712
has missed the point. The point that I am trying to make is that it is illegal for any tobacconist to sell to a child under the age of 16 any form of tobacco, whether it be a cigarette in a packet of 10 or more or a single cigarette. Therefore Clause 3 is not needed. The only thing that Clause 3 does is to prevent a tobacconist selling, and make it an offence for a tobacconist to sell, a single cigarette to an adult. The point I make, and must reinforce, is that Clauses 1 and 2 give sufficient protection to children and provide a sufficient penalty for the person who breaks the law.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? He is overlooking the point that it is possible to misjudge the age of a person who wishes to buy cigarettes. Some young people of 16 may well look more than that, and a tobacconist who sells to them sometimes has the plausible defence that he did not know that they were technically a child. That defence would not be effective if he was also charged with selling one or two cigarettes out of a packet, because that is plain.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That point has been tightened up in Clause 1 in any event. The same applies. The penalty and the defence exist whether a single cigarette is sold or a packet of 10 or more. All the clause does—I must emphasise this—is to prevent a tobacconist from selling a single cigarette to a person over the age of 16. I contend that that is not necessary to protect young people, which is something we all wish to do.
I wish to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who I know is as concerned as I am about individual liberty. We are not talking about the liberty of a person which might adversely affect some other person. We are talking only about a small contract between a willing seller and a willing buyer of one cigarette. In the Bill we are seeking to take away the individual liberty of two adults to make a contract for one party to sell a cigarette and the other to buy it. That is an infringement of individual liberty. It is an absurdity and should not be contained in the Bill.
I shall not press the amendment because I hope that my noble friend is right and Clause 3 is declaratory. I hope that it will be seen as such and that any judges will read our debates before they pass sentence of a fine of £1,000 on a tobacconist for selling a single cigarette to someone over the age of 16. I shall not oppose the clause, although I very much regret it.
Clause 3 agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 4 [Display of warning statements in retail premises and on vending machines]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: I was perfectly happy with the clause at Second Reading but in the light of a case which has been decided since then, I wish to say a few words. Clause 4(5) states:
"It shall be a defence for a person charged with any such offence to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence".

713
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned the plausible defence in the previous debate. The case which has arisen and which gives rise to concern was reported in the Guardian on 29th May under the heading, "TV licence fine for babysitter." The newspaper stated that a babysitter discovered watching "Coronation Street" at a friend's house by TV licence detectors had been fined £100 for watching television at a house that did not have a licence. The person babysitting did not know that her friend had no licence when the TV detectors arrived. She was looking after the friend's daughter, aged 11. We are told that yesterday the television licensing authority said that viewers should check with the owner that a set is licensed.
Members of the Committee can imagine the circumstances where one is out having a pleasant dinner with friends. They may say, "Would you like to see the news headlines?" "Yes, but, my dear fellow, before you switch on, I have to ask you whether you have a licence", the guest says. "Even if you tell me that you have one, if I am to exercise due diligence, I would like to see it, if you don't mind".
The other side of the matter, going on this precedent, is that if a tobacconist is to exercise due diligence, in order thoroughly to satisfy himself, he ought to ask for the birth certificate of anyone coming into the shop. I am concerned about this. I do not wish to make a meal of it, but it seems to me that the decision on the unfortunate babysitter who happened to switch on "Coronation Street" raises a question over what should be "due diligence" in the matter.
Lord Rea: I must say that I had not expected my noble fiend to object to the subsection.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: I am not objecting, I am raising a question.
Lord Rea: I was satisfied with the arguments we heard on Second Reading that this was a reasonable subsection that would cause no great problem.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: But this is post the debate.
Lord Rea: I shall ascertain whether the wording can be improved to accommodate the hypothetical case that the noble Lord puts forward. With that, I hope that he will be satisfied.
Lord Carter: As I understand it, Clause 4 is concerned only with the display of warning statements. The offence would be that there was no warning statement in the retail premises and on the vending machines. I have only just picked up the point, but as regards the sale of cigarettes to children under age, the offence in subsection (5) is linked to subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 4 which is entirely concerned with the display of warning statements. Perhaps my noble friend has missed the point.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: I entirely accept what the noble Lord says and regret that I did not take the opportunity of raising the point on Clause 2 where it would have been germane.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Report received.

Property Misdescriptions Bill
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD SKELMERSDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Offence of property misdescription]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after ("made") insert ("in writing").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I apologise to the Committee for not being present when the Bill was discussed on Second Reading. I should have liked to outline my general feelings about it and given some indication of where my amendments would lead. Unfortunately, I had not realised that this modest-seeming Bill was draconian in the new offences of absolute or strict liability that it could create. Nor had I realised that it is, in all but name, a government Bill, even if it is a Bill where the Government's tail is being firmly wagged by both the Office of Fair Trading and the Consumers' Association. The Government say that they could not find parliamentary time for the Bill. I feel surprised that this year at least they were not able to find the time in the legislative programme. I also wish to express reservations as to whether this is the kind of Bill to be passed by the Government through the means of a Private Member's Bill.
I sincerely congratulate my noble friend Lady Carnegy on the cogent way in which she presented the Bill at Second Reading. Those congratulations must be tempered by the fact that when I read the debate the next morning I immediately came to the conclusion that there were considerations which had not been dealt with and amendments which ought at least to be discussed at later stages of the Bill.
Since then, I have had discussions with my noble friend about the amendments I am moving and the question I shall ask her on Clause 2. I received from her the comprehensive briefing provided by the Consumers' Association. No doubt Members of the Committee also received it as well as the notes on clauses.
I took the opportunity over the Recess to read the reports on the Bill in another place. I am sure that I need not remind the Committee that the proceedings took up over seven hours of Private Members' time on Fridays, much of it spent by Members swapping anecdotes about the behaviour of estate agents.
By contrast, the Bill was, according to Hansard, in Standing Committee in another place for only seven minutes. On Third Reading my honourable friend Mr. Coombs suggested—I thought with a measure of pride —that the Bill had passed through Standing

715
Committee quicker than that. He said that it was evidence of the great goodwill shown to the Bill during its passage through another place that the Committee stage was completed so rapidly. I do not wish to follow too closely in my honourable friend's footsteps.
On Second Reading in this Chamber my noble friend Lady Carnegy said that the Bill had the support of the Law Society. I have made inquiries of the Law Society and I was informed it does not support the Bill except in so far—
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the noble Lord moving Amendment No. 1?
Lord Coleraine: I am moving Amendment No. 1. Perhaps the noble Lord thinks I am making a Second Reading speech. I hope that he will bear with me a little longer because I should make clear, as a solicitor, the position of the Law Society on this matter. The Law Society does not support the Bill except in so far as it has indicated its acceptance of the amendments made to the Bill in Standing Committee with regard to the some 250 solicitors who practise as estate agents in England. As I am a solicitor myself I should add that I have not been advised by the Law Society on my amendments, nor do I practise in the estate agency field. I endorse the Law Society's acceptance of the changes made in Standing Committee.
Amendment No. 1 is intended to restrict the offence of making false or misleading statements to statements made in an estate agent's selling particulars, advertisements and other written documents, and in pictures and in such other methods of signifying meaning referred to in Clause 1(5) (c) as are of a permanent character. I have to confess that the amendment is unclear in a material respect as a result of my drafting. I have no intention of pressing the amendment today.
I am aware of the support for the Bill shown by the three professional associations of estate agents. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has informed me that, for fear of losing the Bill, it hopes that no attempt will be made in this Chamber to amend it. The Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers has written to me to say this amendment adds nothing to the Bill as it would provide that flattering, incorrect, oral descriptions of property would still be lawful.
The National Association of Estate Agents has informed me that my amendment would leave the public without recourse when an oral misstatement is made in the course of business and that the association would not like to see the sellers of property being permitted to make false or misleading statements with impunity.
I shall attempt to answer those points but, first, I wish to reassure the Committee that I fully share the desire of the associations that the estate agency profession should be a profession with the very highest standards. In large measure that is what it already is. I understand the wish of the associations to get rid of those whom they perceive to be cowboy operators
716
who both lower the standing of the profession in the public eye and compete unfairly with their more virtuous brethren.
However, I fear that, though criminalising the making of false and misleading statements may lead to the demise of the cowboys and result in an improvement in standards, it will do so at the expense of unreasonably stifling competition, innovation and enterprise. It will raise the costs of house buying and house selling, it will slow down the house buying and selling processes and we shall move back towards the 19th century. Those who are involved in professions concerned with the transfer of land have for long been hoping to escape from the 19th century.
A particular danger in criminalising oral false or misleading statements is that the estate agent must depend on information which he receives from third parties such as local councils, solicitors and other agents. An estate agent may receive a telephone call from a prospective purchaser who has seen a house and the purchaser will ask him questions. The estate agent then makes a few telephone calls and passes on the information he receives. In my opinion it would not be right for the estate agent innocently making a false or misleading statement in such circumstances to be left with no other defence in criminal proceedings than the due diligence defence mentioned in Clause 2. To protect himself, an agent who is asked such questions will often have to decline to give information until the information he has received has been checked and carefully laundered to see whether it will pass the due diligence test. That is what I mean when I suggest that the effect of this provision will probably lead to a slowing down of the process of house transfer. That will cause considerable irritation to prospective house purchasers who only ring up to obtain a little information.
A further reason for proposing this amendment is to be found in Clause 5 of the Bill, which concerns the time limits for bringing proceedings. I understand that, in the case of a trial on indictment, the time limit may be as long as three years from the making of the statement. It is not sensible, given the fallibility of memory both of the estate agent and of the person who complains about the estate agent, that a statement made orally should be capable of constituting an offence in such circumstances. I should point out that the person who when in the employ of the person who is charged made the statement complained of may be dead or may long have left the district by the time the offence is discovered and prosecuted.
I suggest that it would be reasonable and desirable in a Bill relating to the estate agency profession to make provisions additional to those which appear in the Trade Descriptions Act. There might reasonably be a distinction between the treatment of false and misleading statements made intentionally, knowingly or recklessly and of those made innocently or carelessly. I suggest that it might be reasonable that only oral statements in the former category should be prosecutable, while those in the latter category should not. Those who have drafted this Bill have not made

717
that distinction. It is in that context that I suggest that, as a general rule for the Bill, only statements in writing should be criminalised. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Boardman: I understand my noble friend's reluctance to allow prosecutions based on weak oral evidence which may be three years old. However, I believe he went too far when he said that no such prosecutions should be brought. Of course it is nicer for a court to be provided with a written document which shows quite clearly that false representation has been made. However, there must be many cases where there is clear oral evidence that an estate agent made a false representation about a material factor when a number of people were present. If that evidence is clear, I see no reason why a prosecution should not be brought. If the evidence is not clear, those authorities which may bring a prosecution would presumably feel that it was not right to do so. Therefore I find it difficult to accept my noble friend's amendment. Indeed it might well be said that if a prosecution could not be brought unless there was written evidence, there would be mighty few prosecutions brought in many circumstances. I do not agree with the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I emphasise to the Committee that I speak in a personal capacity as this is a Private Member's Bill. I disagree with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and I agree entirely with the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. Further to what the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, has said, I must add that, if oral assertions were excluded from the ambit of this Bill, that would not be in line with the provisions of the Financial Services Act. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and I discussed that Bill on many occasions in 1986. Therefore I oppose the amendment.
Lord Morris: I, too, took no part in the Second Reading debate on the Bill. I am provoked into keeping the Committee even later by speaking on the Bill partly for the reason that I was very impressed by the way in which my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour presented the Bill to the House and the power of the arguments of noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber. I am not opposed to the Bill; I am in favour of it.
I should like to point out very strongly indeed that I was not a little disturbed by the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Coleraine which were directed at my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I want to make it absolutely clear to him that in this Chamber we speak only for ourselves; we are not the spokesmen or delegates of interested parties. That is a fundamental and very important point.
Lord Coleraine: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but I did not follow his complaint. If he has a serious complaint to make if he would rephrase it I shall try to understand it and respond in due course.
Lord Morris: I was not making a complaint but merely stating that I was disturbed by the fact that he
718
suggested that my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour was nothing other than a spokesperson for a consumer association. That is not the position.
Lord Coleraine: Now that my noble friend has explained his criticism rather than complaint, I can make it clear that I had no intention of suggesting that my noble friend Lady Carnegy spoke otherwise than for herself. I said that this was a government Bill and that I felt that as such it should have been introduced by the Government. If the Official Report shows me to have said something that suggested that my noble friend was speaking for outside interests, of course I shall be the first to regret what I said.
Lord Morris: This is getting extremely silly. This is manifestly not a government Bill. This is not the first time that a Private Member's Bill has created a new criminal offence. I know that some people think that when a new criminal offence is proposed in a Bill in Parliament it should be a government Bill. This is not a government Bill.
I am implacably opposed to the amendment for the reasons which have been extremely well stated by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and supported by my noble friend Lord Boardman.
The amendment is also technically wrong. If my noble friend wanted the amendment to go through he should have considered the fact that in Clause 1(5) (c) —which is nothing other than a definition clause—it is clearly stated, in relation to the making of a false or misleading statement about a prescribed matter, that:
"A statement may be made by pictures or any other method of signifying meaning as well as by words and, if by words, may be made orally or in writing".
My noble friend should have made it clear that the last three words, "or in writing", should be deleted from Clause 1(5) (c). However, that is a technical point.
The amendment goes to the heart of the Bill and to weaken that aspect of the offence would be wrong.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, for missing the beginning of his introduction to the amendment. It was entirely my fault. In so far as I heard what he said I should like to make two short contributions.
As I understand it, there is a social purpose behind the Bill. It is to protect the public from the very people to whom the noble Lord referred—the cowboys in the estate agency and other related businesses. I find it very surprising. If one wants to catch a cowboy, one has to find his horse. In this field he is making misleading statements either on the telephone or at the site, persuading people to buy a beautiful mansion which then falls down round their ears after a couple of years. The noble Lord's reference to Clause 5 bears that out. A timescale is given so that the person who has been misled by the cowboy and finds the house falling about his ears for a specific reason which can be identified and attributed to the false statement can take action against that individual.
For that and the other reasons expressed by other speakers I do not support the amendment.
Viscount Astor: If it is convenient I should like to put the Government's view. This is a Private Member's Bill which has properly been brought to this

719
House after full examination in another place. Although it is a Private Member's Bill it has the full support of the Government, including the provision of drafting services from the beginning. The Government have made no secret of that and I made it clear to your Lordships at Second Reading.
Perhaps I may point out to my noble friend Lord Coleraine that the report of the Director General of Fair Trading in March last year recommended, among other things, that the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 should be extended to cover descriptions of property. The Government agreed to do that when parliamentary time became available. The Bill which is before us, should your Lordships approve it, would produce the equivalent effect of extending the Trade Descriptions Act, a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Perhaps I may turn to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Coleraine about the Law Society. The Department of Trade and Industry has been consulting the Law Society on the Bill from the beginning. Therefore I am surprised that if the society has difficulties with the Bill it has left it until now to raise them.
Turning to the detail of the amendment, the amendment to Clause 1(1) would restrict the coverage of the Bill to false or misleading statements which are made in writing. It would therefore disapply the Bill in respect of oral statements and also in respect of a range of other methods of describing property such as photographs, drawings, plans and models, as well as recent developments such as video films. The proposed amendment to Clause 1(1) would also be inconsistent with Clause 1(5) (c), which gives a deliberately wide scope to the way in which a statement may be made so as to include such non-written communications.
Of course I accept that buying a house is different from, say, buying a used car. In the latter case one might well be persuaded to buy a car on the strength of an oral description by the salesman. One can envisage an Arthur Daley character assuring the customer that it is a one-owner car with genuinely low mileage. When buying a house, on the other hand, the buyer will almost certainly have the benefit of professional advice before making a final commitment. The buyer's solicitor and surveyor will normally be able to check the accuracy of any descriptions. It is therefore unlikely that the buyer will be prejudiced to the same extent.
However, it is also possible for the house buyer to suffer significant loss without going through with a purchase. An oral statement made by an estate agent or builder might cause a prospective purchaser to incur travelling expenses to look at the property, perhaps taking time off work to do so. What is more, the consumer might incur solicitors' or surveyors' fees, or both, before finding that the oral description is false and deciding not to buy. Although, therefore, the situation with regard to buying a house and buying a car is different, the mischief to the consumer as the
720
result of an oral misdescription could well be similar in magnitude. I do not see why they should be treated differently in law.
I accept my noble friend's point that estate agency is a different type of activity and that property is a more complex product. Nevertheless, I do not find that a compelling reason to remove oral misdescriptions from the scope of the Bill. An estate agent is engaged by a vendor as expert in marketing property. It seems to me, therefore, that one is entitled to expect an estate agent to do more for his commission fee than simply regurgitate the information given to him by a vendor or by someone else. If he is not sure about something he should check it out and not make a statement about it. Of course there will be a due diligence defence under Clause 2 in the event that he misdescribed something.
Finally, I consider the point about time limits for prosecutions something of a red herring. The enforcement authorities under the Bill are the trading standards departments, which have considerable experience of enforcement of this type of provision. It is inconceivable that they would take a prosecution on indictment in a case in which there were doubts about someone's memory of something that had been said a long time ago. However, one needs to retain the possibility of prosecution in a serious case where, for example, the defendant admitted that he had made an offending oral statement, albeit as much as three years later. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it would be better not to impose this narrower scope on the coverage of the Bill.
8 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This amendment would seriously weaken the Bill by restricting its coverage to misdescriptions made in written statements and excluding those made in oral statements and in other ways to a client when viewing a property or perhaps over the telephone. The prospective purchaser could be greatly misled—just as much misled and potentially as seriously—by an oral description as by a written one. My noble friend on the Front Bench gave examples of how that could happen. I could add to them if the Committee so desired.
As my noble friend the Minister said, the amendment is also technically defective, but we do not need to go into that at the moment because my noble friend says that he will not press the amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Coleraine that there can be difficulties of proof in the case of oral statements, but it would be wrong to exclude oral statements from the coverage of the Bill simply on those grounds. A number of noble Lords agreed with that point. In other areas of the criminal law such as the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 both written and oral representations are covered. The lack of any distinction does not create enforcement problems in those other areas.
My noble friend said that this was a government Bill. Noble Lords have taken him to task on that point. My honourable friend Mr. Anthony Coombs, who has worked so hard on the Bill with many groups of people, would certainly not feel that it was a

721
government Bill. It has the Government's backing, but it is very much his Bill and he has been helped by very many people.
One group which has helped has been the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. It will be responsible for enforcing the Bill. It tells me and my honourable friend in another place that enforcement problems concerning oral statements under the Trade Descriptions Act are far from insurmountable. Often, all they need is for the oral statement to be heard by more than one person so that one person's evidence can be corroborated by that of another. It points to a number of successful prosecutions for false or misleading oral statements under the Trade Descriptions Act which I can quote if that would be helpful to the Committee. I shall not take up the Committee's time unless it so desires.
As my noble friend Lord Coleraine will probably know, the legal textbook Consumer Trading Law Cases and Materials by Miller and Harvey refers to many cases in which the offending misstatement was oral; that is on page 480. I understand that it is the view of O'Keefe, a leading authority on trade descriptions law, that:
"in principle an oral statement is no better or any worse than a written statement in the application of trade descriptions".
The Institute of Trading Standards Administration is insistent that oral statements should remain covered by the Bill. Such coverage is particularly significant given the amount of information that is passed on orally in relation to property sales. Regardless of the number of prosecutions likely to be brought for oral misdescriptions —and it may not be large —such coverage would still have a significant deterrent effect.
It would be all too easy for unscrupulous agents, towards whom the Bill is aimed, to exploit the gap created by the amendment. It is important —the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, made this point —that the Bill has a social purpose. It is important that that gap should not be created.
The amendment might easily lead to written particulars that are skimpy and uninformative, with information about matters requiring verification and inspection being passed on by word of mouth by an agent, safe in the knowledge that, if false or misleading, he would not face criminal sanctions.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Coleraine said about the special nature of estate agency. Property is a complex product to sell. An agent markets what is not his own and relies on information supplied by third parties. However, I am not persuaded that the amendment should be accepted. The complexity of the product makes it all the more important that greater care is taken over the accuracy of the descriptions. If an agent is paid to sell property, it seems reasonable to expect him to do more than merely rely on the information given to him by the vendor.
My noble friend spoke about time limits and other noble Lords have referred to this matter. He said that it is not reasonable, given the fallibility of memory, that an oral statement could be an offence if the time limit for bringing the prosecution may be as much as three years. But trading standards officers will mount
722
a prosecution only if they can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that an offence has taken place. The time limits are consistent with those in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which covers oral statements and which has stood the test of time. The three-year period recognises the possibility that the description might not come to light until some time after the property has been sold. Given the expense and magnitude of a property purchase, one would expect those concerned to have a clearer memory about how it had been described than perhaps one would have concerning the sale of smaller items such as a fridge.
I think that I have replied to most of the points that have been made. My noble friend Lord Coleraine referred to the possibility of making a distinction between that which is said innocently and that which is said intentionally, but my understanding of the Bill is that the due diligence defence meets that point. That is why it is there. I recognise that my noble friend is anxious about the implications for estate agents, solicitors acting as estate agents and builders who may say something by mistake, but I believe that for the Bill to be useful—it is widely held to be potentially very useful—spoken as well as written misdescriptions should be covered. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken even if they have been unanimous in condemnation of the amendment. The original intervention by my noble friend Lord Boardman dealing with the question of time limits for prosecution shows how unwise one is to muster several arguments in support of a proposition. The weakest or least important of them will be seized, knocked about and eventually returned to base. That is what happened to that argument.
The measure imposes a new offence of strict liability. It is in the context of the purchase or sale of houses. It will make estate agents spend a great deal of time getting their facts right, but they will do so at the expense of the service that they provide to their client and the service that they provide in a sense to the applicant for the property. It is bound to slow matters up. With regard to the point that the estate agent is the servant, the employee or the agent of the seller of the house, I was surprised to hear both my noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lady Carnegy pray in aid and suggest that the estate agent was being paid a fee for doing his job and that he should do a proper job. It may sound cynical but clearly the estate agent who is providing bad or false information will in many cases by his own lights —and possibly by the lights of his vendor —be earning his fee many times over.
My noble friend the Minister referred to my remarks about the Law Society. I can assure him that the fact that the Law Society does not support the Bill is in no way to be taken as indicating that the Law Society opposes the Bill. I did not suggest that it should be so taken. In fact I made it quite clear that the Law Society was not advising me in regard to these amendments and I have no reason to suppose that it either supports or opposes them.
As I made clear when I introduced the amendment, I am well aware of the defect in drafting. I said that I

723
should not press the amendment tonight and I certainly do not intend to do so. I shall obviously consider all that has been said when I have a chance to read the Official Report tomorrow. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In that case I put the Question: that the amendment be agreed to?
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 18, leave out from ("unenforceable") to ("by") in line 19.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in my name. All three amendments deal with the possibilities of the civil liability of estate agents to those whom they mislead.
In that context, Amendment No. 2 is a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. However, I shall address the Committee on the basis that Amendment No. 2 is a probing amendment. There are questions to be answered, whether or not the matters referred to in Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are proceeded with.
Clause 1(4) of the Bill provides:
"No contract shall be void or unenforceable, and no right of action in civil proceedings in respect of any loss shall arise, by reason only of the commission of an offence under this section".
I understand from the notes on clauses that the subsection is a standard type of provision, and I merely seek guidance. However, it strikes me as curious that the words used in the latter part of the subsection refer not to conviction of an offence but to "commission of an offence". That suggests to me that if the facts constituting the commission of a criminal offence amount to a civil wrong also, a civil action may not be brought unless there is some other reason for bringing civil proceedings —some other grounds on which a claim may be made. It seems to me that if that is the meaning of the subsection it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
On the other hand, if the intention of the full subsection is to provide that a civil right of action is not acquired by reason of the conviction alone, I should have thought that that fact ought to be self-evident, that it ought to go without saying and that the words proposed by the amendment to be omitted are otiose and confusing and should be deleted.
Amendment No. 4 would create a statutory duty enabling anyone who has suffered loss as a result of a false or misleading statement which is an offence under the Bill to sue for damages the person committing the offence. As I understand it, the amendment would not necessitate the prosecution of the offender for taking a civil action. That would certainly be my intention. It is what I would consider
724
right and proper and I hope that the Committee would also do so. I am not in favour of prosecutions under this Bill when they can be avoided. Too much criminalisation brings the law into disrepute.
Amendment No. 5 would make the amendment needed to the Long Title to take account of the civil statutory duty, the Long Title at present being limited to the criminal offence and to connected matters. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Boardman: I do not agree with the meaning that my noble friend attributes to the subsection as it is at the moment; namely, that no one could bring a civil action in any circumstances which also gave rise to a criminal court action under the Bill. I do not believe that that is the meaning. The amendment, taken with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, is intended to make the Bill grounds upon which civil proceedings can be brought.
It would be a great pity to introduce civil rights action under a Bill which is designed for the very limited purpose of criminal action. By extending it to civil action, all sorts of different circumstances might arise bringing other matters within the scope of the Bill. I believe that it would be far wiser to keep it to the narrow cause that is here; namely, that certain action —misleading statements —made by an estate agent's business will give rise to criminal proceedings, if indeed the evidence is there. It would be a great mistake to extend the Bill to give civil rights which can be, and indeed are, dealt with in other ways.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Am I to understand that the noble Lord is speaking to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5?
Lord Coleraine: Not to Amendment No. 3.
Lord Williams of Elvel: So we are discussing Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and the consequential amendment in the Long Title, Amendment No. 5. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I find it embarrassing to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, the whole time, but I wholly agree with what he said. We had a discussion at Second Reading about the problems of civil action and criminal liability. I gained proper assurance, both from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the Minister that nothing that happens under this Bill, if it is enacted, would affect any possible civil recourse. So I cannot see why any of these amendments are either necessary or desirable.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, on the point he made about the Law Society. I apologise if I misunderstood his first point but I am grateful to him for making the position clear. I fully appreciate that in tabling these amendments my noble friend seeks to protect the position of people who may suffer loss as a result of property misdescriptions. However, I submit that the amendments are unnecessary.
Clause 1(4) does not deprive aggrieved parties of any of their rights of action for compensation under existing law but merely means that the commission of an offence under the Bill does not itself result in any

725
further civil rights. In this respect the Bill mirrors the position under similar consumer protection legislation, for example, Section 42(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Additionally, because the Bill would create a new criminal offence of property misdescription, the aggrieved consumer in effect would have another string to his bow. In the event of a conviction for an offence of misdescribing property, the aggrieved party would be able to apply to the court for a compensation order under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. The consumer who is adversely affected by a misdescription also has recourse to compensation by way of a civil action for misrepresentation. That would remain the position under the Bill as drafted, whether or not the misdescription was the subject of a prosecution.
I hope therefore that my noble friend will accept that the consumer is in no way prejudiced by the provisions of the Bill. On the contrary, its effect is to give the consumer an extra course of action which in practice is a much simpler one to pursue than that proposed by my noble friend.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for that explanation. He has saved me much time and trouble by explaining this slightly complex matter. It is likely that the amendment arises from a misunderstanding concerning Clause 1, line 18, which appears specifically to preclude a mechanism for civil redress. It states:
"No light of action in civil proceedings in respect of any loss shall arise, by reason only of the commission of an offence under this section".
For the reasons that my noble friend has just given, I assure my noble friend that his amendments are not necessary.
Clause 1(4) does not remove the entitlement to civil redress. It merely prevents the development of an additional entitlement to civil redress for an offence, which would be unnecessary and might give rise to confusion and argument. There are precedents for such a provision. The Bill mirrors the provision under similar consumer legislation in that respect. For example, in Section 41(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 there are two forms of redress which my noble friend outlined under civil proceedings and criminal proceedings respectively.
The victim is not entitled as of right to compensation under criminal law as he is under civil law. It is up to the court to decide whether it is appropriate. The levels of compensation are for the courts to decide, although the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts is limited to £2,000 for each offence of which the accused is convicted.
The Committee will understand that since we already have in place two mechanisms for redress for victims of property misdescriptions it is unnecessary and confusing to provide a third. In effect, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, provides a third means of redress. I hope that he will agree that it is unnecessary. Having heard the explanation, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morris: I thank my noble friends Lord Astor, Lady Carnegy of Lour, Lord Boardman and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for having put so eloquently and so much better than I could have done precisely the position that I would have taken.
Lord Coleraine: I do not wish to spend time on the drafting aspect of the clause to which I referred in Amendment No. 2. I hope that my noble friends will read what I said. I shall read what they said about the effect of the clause. As I understand it. the clause clearly states that one cannot produce a civil claim out of the commission of an offence. The Bill creates no further civil claim. I should have thought that that was self-evident. For that reason I suggested that the phrase in question might be otiose.
With regard to the amendment giving civil right of action, I believe that there has been a misunderstanding about the rights that are said to exist now to protect applicants for houses who find themselves misled by estate agents. The Minister stated that there would be an action for misrepresentation. As I understand it, the common law provides that there is an action for fraudulent misrepresentation, but the fraud —the knowledge that the statement is untrue —or the recklessness in making the statement, has to be proved.
It is correct that the Misrepresentation Act 1967 gives remedy for innocent misrepresentation. However, that applies only when a contract has been concluded. In most cases where there has been a concluded contract, the party suffering from a misrepresentation will have ample remedies already. The Bill makes provision for the case where there is no concluded contract but where someone has wasted money on a survey which he will not regain.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy referred to the Powers of Criminal Courts Act and stated that a court could award compensation when convicting under the Act. That is perfectly correct. However, I do not believe that it is the right mechanism. It would he better if a person were to have the right to go to a small claims court and bring civil proceedings. To receive compensation under the Powers of the Criminal Courts Act there has to be a prosecution. I should have thought that if the person who wanted the compensation had to go to the weights and measures offices to ask for a prosecution he or she might not wish to do so.
I do not suggest a third remedy where two already exist. I suggest a remedy which would be appreciated by all those for whom the Bill has been drafted. However, I accept the argument that the provision is outside the intention of those who drafted the Bill and widens its scope. In the circumstances, on this occasion I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Noble Lords: No.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 24, leave out from ("it") to ("is") in line 25.
The noble Lord said: The amendment removes from the Bill the provision that a statement is misleading if what a reasonable man may be expected to infer from any omission from it is false.
I do not consider the provision to be logically acceptable. Whatever is not included in the statement is omitted from it. That leaves a very wide area indeed in which a weights and measures official may fish. I believe that courts are already well accustomed in appropriate cases to find that omissions render statements false. I do not see the desirability of having this provision codified in the Bill. Too great an attempt to define the law in such a case seems likely only to confuse estate agents and all others who have to interpret the Bill. It is only likely to benefit lawyers.
The notes on clauses to the provision are economic. I believe that there may be precedents for such provision. If there are, no doubt they will be brought to my attention. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, persuasive. I believe that the Bill as it stands is right. I therefore shall not support the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Boardman: I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I have not been persuaded by the arguments. There must be many cases where a statement is made which is correct in itself but gives a misleading impression to the potential purchaser. For example, a purchaser might ask, "Is there water?" The agent might say, "The well is over there," when in fact the well has been empty for three years. That surely is a misrepresentation. For that reason I feel unable to support the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Morris: I, likewise, do not support the amendment. An omission from a statement can be every bit as important as the making of a misleading statement. For example, if the estate agent concerned fails to mention the fact that the house has been built over a disused coalmine and could be subject to subsidence, that is a material and important fact. In criminal law this Bill places a duty on the agent concerned to include material facts in a statement like that. For that reason the critically important words, "or from any omission from it", which my noble friend wishes to delete run to the very heart of the Bill. I suggest that this amendment should be vehemently opposed.
Viscount Astor: I have difficulties of principle with this amendment. Clause 1(5) (b) is designed to avoid a situation where someone might legally be able to describe a property using a statement which, although accurate so far as it went, left out some material particular which, had it been included, would have conveyed a significantly different impression to the prospective purchaser.
Perhaps I may give two hypothetical examples to illustrate that. A house may be described as handy for local shops. It may be that the only handy shops are a video hire shop and a hairdresser. A school may be
728
listed among the local amenities without the qualification that it is only a sixth form college. Those are not particularly good examples.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Astor: I stress that they are hypothetical. I am sure that Members of the Committee opposite could think of much better examples. However, it seems doubtful to me whether, without reference to an omission, those statements would be regarded as misleading under the Bill.
I should like to draw my noble friend's attention to Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which contains a very similar form of words in relation to misleading statements about prices. The purpose of that formula is to make it clear on the face of the Bill that those marketing property will not be able to tell half truths about a property if the effect of omitting information is likely to mislead potential buyers.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank Members of the Committee for making the points which I wished to make on this amendment. The wording in the Trade Descriptions Act makes the coverage of omission implicit rather than spelling it out in the Bill. This amendment would follow that. The wording of the Trade Descriptions Act has allowed for numerous prosecutions to be brought when omissions have been made. Therefore, my noble friend asks why there needs to be specific reference in this Bill to omissions from statements.
As my noble friend Lord Astor said, there is a precedent in the Consumer Protection Act. The wording there is very similar to what we have in the Bill. It was felt that it is very important in relation to the sale of property to pinpoint the fact that omissions are covered. Therefore, it was considered wise to make specific provision.
The Institute of Trading Standards Administration expressed very strong views on this issue in its response to the Consumer Association's consultations prior to the drafting of the Bill. It stated:
"The Institute feels strongly that … the Bill should regulate whereby the absence of information given in the description of property … becomes an offence … We recognise that the wording of such a Section may be difficult but the issues are of such importance that we feel they should be addressed".
Given that the practical effect is the same, no matter whether coverage of omissions is implicit or explicit, surely it is helpful to make the point clear to the professions and to builders by spelling out in the Bill that they are liable to prosecution if they render a statement misleading by omission of information.
The Minister gave what he said were theoretical examples of omissions. I could add more if Members of the Committee wish me to do so. In short, this clause deals with half truths as regards information. It should be absolutely clear from the Bill that if a property seller chooses to make a statement about a prescribed matter, he must not leave out important information without which the statement could seriously deceive prospective purchasers. If in doubt —for example, because information on a matter cannot be verified —there is nothing to prevent the

729
agent saying nothing at all on that matter. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coleraine: I wish that I could withdraw the amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend for what she said by way of explanation in regard to omissions from statements. If anyone asks, "What shall I do if there is any doubt as to whether something which is omitted from a statement will make it misleading?" the answer will be, "Do not say it". The ultimate result will be that nothing will be said in the particulars and the person who is looking for a property will be no further forward.
On Second Reading my noble friend drew attention to a case known to herself where an agent had said that there was a septic tank. Unbeknown to the purchaser, there were two connections to the septic tank, one from the property for sale and another from another property. Two points arise on that. First, had the agent made a misleading statement? I doubt it because certainly in England —I do not know whether matters are different in Scotland —if someone is told that there is a septic tank, he will not deduce anything from that statement as to the number of connections to it.
However, the other point is that, where an agent is in difficulties as to how to describe something thoroughly, he will, if the Bill is passed with this provision in it, come to the conclusion that the best thing he can do is to say that the property enjoys private drainage. Even that may worry him. Therefore, he will leave the matter out of the particulars altogether.
I make the apocalyptic prophecy that there are aspects of this Bill — and this is one of them —which will make it more difficult for people to buy and sell houses, however well intentioned it may be. Having said that, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before we leave Clause 1 I should perhaps return to a point I made at Second Reading, which was that the Bill —which generally I support —creates an offence the nature of which is not known. First, it is only subsection (7) of Clause 1 which indicates the order which the Secretary of State may make to determine what is the criminal offence to be prosecuted, if it is prosecuted under the Bill. It is not until that order is promulgated that we will know what the Bill is about.
Secondly, there is no provision in the Bill as to when it should come into force. Under normal circumstances when the Bill receives Royal Assent, as I hope it will, it will become an Act of Parliament. It will then create a criminal offence the nature of which the public at large do not understand and could not possibly understand unless the order at that time were to be promulgated.
730
I ask the noble Viscount to give an assurance before we leave Clause 1 that the order, which will indicate to what properties and activities the Bill relates, will be made before Royal Assent.
Viscount Astor: I said on the last occasion, but I am happy to say again, that the prescribed matters relating to land to which the Bill will apply are to be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. The Government will consult widely before making such an order. It would be presumptuous for the Government to consult widely before making an order if they did not have a Bill. We have said that we shall consult widely before the Secretary of State makes an order. I hope that that in some degree will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Morris: I have made many mistakes in my life, not least is falling for the undoubted charm and persuasive ability of my noble friend Lady Carnegy to convince me to look at the Bill and indeed read the Second Reading contributions. An even worse mistake was to read the Second Reading contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. That provoked me into doing a tremendous amount of hard work this afternoon on a point relating to what he said. It is somewhat arcane, but it is important.
It is a well established fact that the passing of the Bill and the receiving of Royal Assent amount to precisely the same thing. The significance of the date of Royal Assent is that unless the contrary intention appears it is also the date of commencement.
As I said earlier, the most important fact about the Bill is that it creates a new criminal offence. In addition, it creates the defence that may be brought to bear by a defendant. It sets out the rules in the schedule for enforcement and —an important point —it is on the commencement of the Bill (which can only be on Royal Assent) that a solemn and important duty is placed on the enforcement authorities. Schedule 1, paragraph (1) reads,
"and it shall be the duty of each such authority to enforce the provisions of this Act within their area".
If, for the sake of argument, the Bill receives Royal Assent on 2nd August, the Act is stating that a duty is placed on the enforcement authorities to enforce a law about which they know nothing. It comes down to a question of drafting style. I ask my noble friend seriously to consider taking the best possible advice —I suggest that must be from my noble friend on the Front Bench —on the efficacy or otherwise of having a specific statement within the Bill; namely, a commencement clause. For example, it could state that Clause 1(5) (d) in effect places a duty on the Secretary of State to make the order binding, or describe the parameters of the offence.
Clause 1(7) is basically the nature of the order. It states:
"An order under this section may —(a) make different provision for different cases, and (b) include such supplemental, consequential and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
That gives rise to another point in subsection (7). I am surprised that there is no amendment at this stage that there should be an affirmative rather than a negative resolution. I believe very strongly that at

731
Report stage —perhaps I could humbly suggest this to my noble friend Lady Carnegy —an amendment should be tabled to make this an affirmative rather than a negative resolution. When Parliament is creating a new criminal offence it is essential that Parliament agree to the order containing the parameters of that offence, which is what the nature of the order will be about and it will probably also include commencement provisions on the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure.
Those are the only points that I wish to make and I ask my noble friend to consider them. I shall be obliged if my noble friend the Minister, even at this late hour, will indicate his views.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Boardman: I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. However, surely once the Secretary of State has consulted widely, as my noble friend indicated he will be doing in making the order, it is at that stage that the offences are created against which the Bill is aimed. There must be many measures which define what an offence will be after the Bill has become law. I should not have thought that unusual.
Lord Coleraine: I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Boardman is correct. However, it seems to be clear from what my noble friend the Minister did not say that the consultation processes will not be concluded by Prorogation. Therefore, it seems sensible to bring into the Bill at Report stage a provision that the Bill should be brought into effect by commencement order.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Morris in regard to the affirmative resolution. Where the offence is basically to be created by order it is right that both Houses of Parliament should have the opportunity of discussing the matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I can echo the words of the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Coleraine. Is not the proper procedure for the Bill to have a commencement section? The Bill will receive Royal Assent and become an Act. The order and the consultations relating to it will all have taken place and the commencement and the order will come at the same time. In that way everybody knows exactly what offence is being committed and there is no offence prior to that.
Lord Morris: I apologise for rising once again. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Coleraine and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. They reminded me of an important point I failed to make. One of the effects of a specific commencement order in the body of the Bill would be to compel the Secretary of State to follow through his duty to make the order within a specific time. As it stands, this very important Bill could sit on the shelf forever and a day until whatever time the Executive thinks fit. The only duty placed upon the Minister is that,
"a prescribed matter is any matter relating to land which is specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
732
With no commencement provision, he can take that course five years hence. That will be sad. I know that we have had an undertaking from the Minister, but it would be very sad if the Bill were not brought into operation as soon as possible.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I do not wish to follow on about the points raised in the past 10 minutes, though I support everything that has been said. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for being most helpful and kind as regards the two points that I raised at Second Reading. I understand that the claims that I made then about a false claim as to a reduction in price shown in a previous advertisement, and the jargon which is used by estate agents about new instructions, can be included in Clause 1. I am grateful that the noble Baroness was able to give me that information.
However, while those matters can come under Clause 1, there is nothing that gives me satisfaction because that provision need not necessarily be prescribed. I say to the noble Baroness that it will give me greater satisfaction if she can encourage the Secretary of State to put into operation what I want and can say that it will be prescribed in the Bill —namely, the two points which were not thought of by the Bill's original proposers in the other place. Perhaps these matters were overlooked. They might have been included if they had been drawn to their attention earlier. I am well aware that consultation has already taken place with the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers and with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
The Minister has said that the Government have given a commitment to consult. The noble Baroness has also told us that there will be full consultation outside this place. I ask to be included in that consultation, together with, with some justification, the consumer protection department of the City of Birmingham. It gave me chapter and verse as regards the points I raised. It has done a great deal of research on misleading price advertisements. I feel sure that it would be very helpful also to the Department of Trade and Industry and to the Government generally if the consumer protection department's view were expressed. I believe that the Institute of Trading Standards Administration might also be consulted. It is the body which has to police the Bill.
The points which I raised at Second Reading have been adequately covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. But I ask her to give more consideration and put more push behind the requests that I made earlier.
Viscount Astor: I wish to re-emphasise on behalf of the Government that the Bill will have no practical effect until the order is made. No offences can be committed. I also emphasise that we want the Bill. The Government are extremely keen to have it. We have discussed this evening the effects of the main offence for which the Bill provides even though the detail of the characteristics of property to be covered are to be left to be prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State. I believe that we all know what property misdescriptions are. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. This is not a case where the nature

733
of the offence is unknown until subordinate legislation is made. The Government have given an undertaking to consult widely on the list of prescribed matters before making an order. A copy of the consultation document will be made available in the Library of this House. I am happy to give that assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher.
I turn to the point made about the negative and affirmative procedure. There are plenty of precedents for similar orders under consumer protection legislation made by way of the negative resolution procedure. For example, there are the safety orders made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and marking orders under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. Given the pressures on the time of your Lordships' House and that the draft order will be subject to wide consultation, I do not see the necessity for the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: A genuine point has been made which my noble friend on the Front Bench has not met. I refer to the lack of a commencement order and the position which is then created if the Bill becomes law and there is a pause before the order is laid. In those circumstances we should look at the
734
matter to see whether that is correct. I have not had an opportunity to take advice on the matter and I am unable to do so during discussion on a Private Member's Bill. I wish to find out about that. At the same time I might take advice on whether it should be by the affirmative or negative resolution procedure. That means that we require a Report stage and I hope that it will be a short one.
I hope that most of the anxieties which noble Lords have expressed have been met during the discussions that we have had and that this clause will stand part of the Bill.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Heathrow Express Railway (No. 2) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at nine o'clock.

  ETHIOPIA AND ERITREA: POLICY
  ETHIOPIA AND ERITREA: POLICY
  STANSTED EXPRESS RAIL SERVICE
  STANSTED EXPRESS RAIL SERVICE
  MARINE INSURANCE INDUSTRY: REGULATION
  MARINE INSURANCE INDUSTRY: REGULATION
  ROAD SPEED LIMITS
  ROAD SPEED LIMITS
  RURAL SUB-POST OFFICES
  RURAL SUB-POST OFFICES
  SMALL BUSINESSES: POLICY
  SMALL BUSINESSES: POLICY
  GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE 1979–1990
  GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE 1979–1990