Sitting of 26 February 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  FOLKESTONE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  Mr. Speaker: Before we start Scottish questions, I remind Members from Scottish constituencies that, as is my practice, I shall seek to call those who were not called last time and give them some preference.
  SCOTLAND

    Home Rule
    Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet representatives of the Scottish Constitutional Convention to discuss home rule for Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I have no plans to meet representatives of the convention. I have already initiated public and parliamentary debate of its proposals which were discussed in considerable detail in the Scottish Grand Committee on 24 February.
    Mrs. Adams: As this is likely to be the last Scottish Question Time before the general election, will the Secretary of State indulge in a deathbed conversion and recognise the frustrations and hopes of the Scottish people about the present constitutional set-up? Will he discontinue his pre-election pact with the Scottish National party in its all-or-nothing bid? Does he agree that a meeting with the convention may not be enough to save his seat but may just save his face?
    Mr. Lang: I look forward to answering Scottish questions from this Dispatch Box at the first Scottish Question Time after the general election. Then, as now, I shall do my best to ensure the protection of Scotland's best interests by maintaining its place as a full, equal partner in this United Kingdom Parliament.
    Mr. Marlow: As a unionist with very good reason for having the warmest of feelings towards Scotland, may I ask my right hon. Friend to make it absolutely clear to anyone who wishes to establish an institution in Scotland with legislative powers over certain areas of policy that,
    950
    regrettably, it would be totally unacceptable for any Scottish Member of the House to have any say, vote or control over areas of policy in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Lang: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's anxiety on that point. It is an anxiety shared by several Labour Members, most notably the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and, more recently, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the central dilemmas faced by those who would advocate setting up a separate Parliament with separate powers entrenched in Edinburgh in rivalry to the Westminster Parliament. That is incompatible with the integrity of the United Kingdom Parliament. It would not be sustainable or stable in the long term.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, given that after five years his Government have completely failed to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, he has no credibility in the constitutional debate in Scotland because he has no proposals to make? Is not that aggravated by the fact that the Prime Minister does not know what he believes about the future of Scotland? The consequence is that the only way to secure reform is to secure the defeat of every Conservative candidate in Scotland at the general election.
    Mr. Lang: We know what the leader of the Liberal Democrats thinks. He thinks that a proportional representation voting system is more important than the constitutional future of Scotland. When asked whether he would support a constitutional change in Scotland if he did not have proportional representation, he said no; so he makes it clear that he gives higher priority to the self-interest of the Liberal Democrats and a voting system that would help them than to the issue of principle on Scotland's constitutional future.
    Mr. Molyneaux: In the light of the Prime Minister's speech last Saturday, will the Secretary of State consider extending the consultations to which he referred to include the leaders of all parties in the House in order to find out what common ground there might be on the possibility of decentralisation of powers common to the four component parts of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Lang: The central message delivered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Glasgow last Saturday was the importance of maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom. I am sure that that is a sentiment with which the right hon. Gentleman would warmly agree. Within the integrity of the United Kingdom, the different component parts have different interests and those are already well represented and will continue to be so within the constitutional arrangements based here at Westminster.
    Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, had I not been an Englishman I would have been happy to be a Scotsman and that had I been alive in the Fifteen or the Forty-five, I would have been in the field for the Stuarts? But surely the time has come to give up those illusions and to do what is best for all of us, the best for Scotland and for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend epitomises what is best in this place in that he is able to represent the interests of England and of the United Kingdom in the same way that

    951
    my right hon. and hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies are able to advance the best interests of Scotland and of the United Kingdom. We have far more to gain from helping each other and sharing representation in this United Kingdom Parliament than we have from breaking it up, as the Labour party's proposals would do.
    Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State constantly talks of the defence of the Union. Given the confusion that has arisen as a result of the Prime Minister's remarks after his speech on Saturday, does such a defence rule out now and in future for the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party the setting up of any form of directly elected body covering all Scotland and drawing power from Westminster?
    Mr. Lang: The muddle and confusion exist only in the mind of the hon. Gentleman. The position of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Government and this party is absolutely clear. We are determined to maintain Scotland's full place as an equal partner in the United Kingdom and to create no bodies which would fragment or undermine that position. We believe that Scotland has benefited enormously from her membership of the United Kingdom and we do not wish to jeopardise her place in it.

    Recession
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) to discuss the effects of the recession in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: I have frequent contacts with the Scottish Council and look forward to a continuing exchange of views. I am sure that the council will have noted the consensus view of economic commentators that Scotland has been less affected by the world recession than any other part of Great Britain and that Scottish economic growth this year is likely to match or exceed that of the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Welsh: Having invited debate on self-government and having not received the answers for which he hoped, why is the Minister not listening to leaders of Scottish commerce and industry who say that we have nothing to fear and a great deal to gain from independence? As the United Kingdom's high interest rates and other policies are creating record bankruptcies and rising unemployment and making Scottish industry and commerce less competitive in European and world markets, how can he justify the continuation of those inappropriate Government policies in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: There is absolutely no doubt that the almost unanimous view of business men in Scotland is that the one thing that would undermine Scotland's economic future would be for Scotland to be cut off from the rest of the United Kingdom and reduced to a small home market of about 5 million people, driving away inward investment with higher tax rates and with a volatile currency dependent on the fluctuations of oil, with future uncertainty as to Scotland's continuing membership of the European Community. The recipe of the hon. Gentleman and his party for Scotland's future is a recipe for decline and impoverishment.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Secretary of State will be aware that the co-operation of the work force at Hoover Cambuslang has been a major factor in ensuring the long-term viability of that factory. Bearing in mind the financial support that the Government have made available to Hoover plc for the factory at Cambuslang, will the Secretary of State join me in supporting the work force who are looking for assurances from Hoover plc that there will be no transfer of work from Cambuslang to any other location?
    Mr. Lang: That is essentially a matter for the management and not for me. Certainly, it would be wrong for the Government to intervene in important management decisions. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the fact that the Government's regional assistance policies are helping Hoover, as they have helped so many other companies in Scotland, and for the implicit acknowledgement that industrial relations have so improved under the Government that the negotiations to which he referred can take place. What a contrast with the last period of Labour Government.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend meets the Scottish Council, will he draw its attention to the fact that under the SNP's proposals Scotland would lose up to about 30,000 defence-related jobs? Will he tell the council that Lossiemouth, Kinloss and Leuchars, the RAF main bases, would all close, that the Royal Marine base at Cawdor would close and that Rolls-Royce, Ferranti, GEC and others would lose their orders and Yarrows would get no orders for frigates? Consequently, Scotland would lose 30,000 jobs. What for? For separatist, socialist, nationalism.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and puts the point extremely well. In addition to what will happen to all those defence-related jobs, it is certain that the large flow of inward investment and the jobs created from that will cease. The most recent announcement of such investment—that Matsushita will create a factory in East Kilbride with £8 million investment—follows my visit to the company in Japan last autumn. That and other inward investment will dry up.
    Mr. Wilson: The Secretary of State referred to the last Labour Government. I assure him that we are extremely pleased to make comparisons with that Government in terms of unemployment statistics and the support given to Scottish industry. Will he confirm that in 1976–77 some £680 million, in current terms, was paid to Scottish industry in regional assistance? Will he also confirm that last year the equivalent figure, in current terms, was less than £160 million? What immense improvement in the Scottish economy and in unemployment justifies a 75 per cent. reduction in assistance to Scottish industry when in my constituency, for instance, the official figures show that one person in seven is out of work and the unofficial figures, based on the old count, show that almost one person in five is out of work?
    Mr. Lang: I will give the hon. Gentleman the comparisons. For every four companies in existence when the last Labour Government left office there are now seven. When they left office, the rate of inflation had doubled and had averaged 15 per cent. for the previous five years; the present rate is well below 5 per cent. When the last Labour Government left office, unemployment had doubled; within the past three years, employment has risen

    953
    by 150,000. Within the lifetime of this Parliament, unemployment has fallen by 100,000 and productivity has risen by more than 5 per cent. a year. Within the past three or four years, investment has reached the highest levels ever, and in four of the past five years we have achieved record output. In the past year or two, we have achieved record exports. Those are some comparisons between this Government and the last Labour Government.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. So that I am able to call more Members, may we have briefer questions? Long questions lead to long answers.

    Constitutional Reform
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has had concerning the constitutional future of Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: In the past six months, representations received about constitutional issues have comprised 141 letters or postcards, of which 55 were in favour of devolution, 39 were in favour of independence and 47 were opposed to either.
    Mrs. Fyfe: In the past four days since the Prime Minister made his extraordinary remark about taking stock after the general election, has the Secretary of State for Scotland got around to clarifying what was meant by that?
    Mr. Lang: The Prime Minister, like the leaders of all political parties and like all candidates in the election, will be taking stock the day afterwards. My right hon. Friend will be taking stock of the increased number of Members representing the Conservative party. A more appropriate phrase for the Opposition would be "licking wounds".
    Mr. Harry Ewing: When the Secretary of State considers constitutional change, will he disregard the position of the SNP? Having listened on Monday for a fairly long time to the SNP pleading to leave the Union, I noticed that the leader of the parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), could not get down to Westminster quick enough to sit beside the heir to the throne at a dinner. If that is not near the the United Kingdom establishment, I do not know what is.
    Mr. Lang: Far be it from me to intervene in family squabbles between two members of two socialist parities. I content myself with standing firm on the only piece of strong ground in the constitutional argument, which represents those who believe in the maintenance of Scotland's place in the United Kingdom. That is the position to which we are committed.
    The Speaker: I call Mrs. Margaret Ewing—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Lady was mentioned.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Leaving aside the rather sour comments of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), may I ask the Secretary of State whether he believes in the Meccano engineering ideas propounded as a way to resolve the constitutional issue in Scotland—such as the Scottish Grand Committee meeting more often in Scotland, or even the Cabinet meeting in Scotland? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that would be viewed by the Scots as tinkering with an unacceptable
    954
    solution? Will he deal with the fundamental issue that the Scottish people have placed firmly on his doorstep, which is the need for a facility to establish the right of the Scots to self-determination?
    Mr. Lang: I do not believe in tinkering with the constitution and that is where I part company with all the parties on the Opposition Benches. Whether they would deliberately break Scotland free from the remainder of the United Kingdom, which is the policy of the hon. Lady's party, or do that by degrees and in disguise, which is the policy of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, the end product would be the same. The only protection of Scotland's place within the United Kingdom is the sovereignty of this United Kingdom Parliament.
    Mr. Adley: Although I recognise that the West Lothian question remains to be answered, some of those who have listened to the arguments for more than 20 years still find the arguments of our right hon. Friend Lord Home rather more seductive than the argument of our right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). Is not it a cause of some concern that ever since 1975 support for our party in Scotland has been declining? Has not our party always been in favour of decentralisation? When my right hon. Friend returns to office, as he will in the next Government, will he initiate some discussions that will enable us to arrive at a solution to the problem that satisfies all parties?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to identify the principle of devolution as important to our party. That is why we devolved power from the Government to the people; that is why we devolved power from the centre to the outlying parts. However, my hon. Friend's memory of history is a little shaky. If he reflects, he may recall that after the last occasion on which the constitutional question was directly addressed in a referendum in 1979, the strength of the Scottish Conservative party rose considerably in the subsequent Parliament. In that referendum campaign, support for a devolved assembly fell from 70 per cent. at the beginning to just above 30 per cent. at the end.

    Hospital Building
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Lothian health board to discuss the hospital building programme.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I meet health board chairmen on a regular basis and from time to time we discuss the hospital building programme, which is the biggest in the history of the national health service in Scotland.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for that statement. He is aware that the Scots want self-determination and their own Parliament—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Lothian health board.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
    The Scots, especially Leithers, want democratic control of the health service. Last year, they were promised a new hospital for Leith. No brick has been laid, and I understand that the Minister has done nothing about that. If he is anxious about the Scottish dimension, will he advise the bureaucrats on the health board and in his

    955
    Department about what the people want? They certainly want a decent health service and we desperately need a hospital in Leith.
    Will the Minister ensure that a clinic is established to look after HIV patients? It is no use suggesting, as I understand has been suggested, that sufferers of that disease should be shunted up a side street in my constituency. This is an emotive issue. I say to the Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not fair for the hon. Member to take so long.
    Mr. Brown: It is not fair on the people in my constituency—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough, please.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the health service in Lothian, which has excellent facilities for HIV patients, and a specialist unit in Edinburgh was provided by the Government during the term of this Parliament. As to new hospitals, I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman is unaware that Lothian health board proposes to develop Leith hospital and to provide geriatric and psychogeriatric beds. Its proposals will come before Ministers shortly, although the board will have to consult on them. Does the hon. Gentleman also not know that Lothian health board plans to spend £200 million on a new teaching hospital for Edinburgh and new acute facilities? That is more than the last Labour Government spent on new building in the whole of Scotland in every year of office. The hon. Gentleman has a real nerve coming to the House to complain about Lothian health board's record, which is second to none.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is not the Minister aware that the new Edinburgh teaching hospital was planned under the last Labour Government, and that it has taken 12 years for the Conservative Government to reach any decision? Is not the Minister further aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and I have been informed that an announcement about that new hospital is being delayed until the general election campaign? Will the Minister confirm that it is part of the Government's cynicism and continuing propaganda to sit on that announcement until the election campaign begins?
    Mr. Forsyth: I have no idea when the general election will be, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it will be held in the immediate future, Lothian health board will certainly not be in a position to present its acute strategy. I have no doubt that a Labour Government planned all sorts of things, but they were the only Government in the history of the health service to cut the health building programme. That is Labour's record. This Government have presided over the biggest health building programme in the history of the NHS. Good intentions do not treat the sick, but this Government have treated the sick.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss financial problems of local authorities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): As part of the normal
    956
    consultation on local government finance matters, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I plan to meet the convention on 3 April.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Surely all right hon. and hon. Members agree that the poll tax is the most obnoxious ever devised by man. Does not the Minister agree that the poorest and neediest—old-aged pensioners, and the unemployed—should have received a 100 per cent. guaranteed rebate since the tax started, and that those who have been forced to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax should receive refunds?
    Mr. Stewart: There is a problem of non-collection in Strathclyde, but the average 20 per cent. increase in non-collection for Scottish local authorities as a whole is mainly due to Strathclyde's 35 per cent. increase. If the hon. Gentleman wants to identify the real problem, he ought to attack the real villain, Tommy Sheridan of the Anti-Poll Tax Federation, who I believe is to stand against the hon. Gentleman. Does not the hon. Gentleman have the guts to do so?
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lambie:
    Mr. Lambie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me in what will be my last Scottish Question Time after nearly 22 years' service in the House. I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to wish you well on your retirement to another place.
    Is the Minister aware that one of the unemployment and social black spots of Cunninghame is the three-towns area of Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston? As a result of prompting by the Stevenston branch of the Labour party, a three-towns initiative has been launched, involving the two Members of Parliament representing Cunninghame constituencies, Strathclyde and Cunninghame local authorities and the two relevant Members of the European Parliament? Will the Minister meet a deputation to discuss what financial help the Government can give to ensure the success of that initiative?
    Mr. Stewart: If this is the hon. Gentleman's last Scottish question time, that will be a matter of regret throughout the House. The hon. Gentleman has represented his constituents with a great deal of vim, vigour and dedication; on behalf of those constituents, he has been a thorn in the flesh of successive Governments—especially Labour Governments.
    The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is this: I understand what he has said and if he wishes to meet me to discuss that particular constituency matter, I shall of course agree.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of local government finance in Scotland has been aggravated by those who refuse to pay the community charge? Is it not a scandal when Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), belong to the "can pay but won't pay" brigade? Law-makers should never become law-breakers.
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that potential law-makers cannot and should not be law-breakers.
    The settlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scottish local authorities in the coming year is extremely generous. The original aggregate external finance settlement of 6·1 per cent. has now been

    957
    increased by an extra £6·7 million to 6·3 per cent. That figure is well ahead of the rate of inflation, and it is a more than reasonable settlement.
    Mr. Maxton: When will the Minister stop hiding behind the "can't pay, won't pay" brigade, and admit that the whole chaos of the poll tax was caused by him and his supporters who instituted the tax? Does he not recognise that the poll tax will come back to haunt the Conservatives during the election campaign as next year's poll tax bills flood through the post boxes? Will he now accept that the one step that he can take to ensure an easier collection of the poll tax during its last year is to abolish the 20 per cent. minimum payment on 1 April this year, rather than waiting until next year?
    Mr. Stewart: There is another hon. Member who does not attack Tommy Sheridan.
    The Government's position is absolutely clear. Let me point out that the personal community charge for Lothian is to be increased by only 2·6 per cent. May I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, as far as I understand it, his policy is to bring back the rates in Scotland?
    Mr. Maxton indicated assent—
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman nods. Good—keep nodding. He will bring back the rates in Scotland, at the levels that will operate after a Scottish revaluation. He could not do that in England. If he thinks that that will help the cause of the United Kingdom, he is making a grave error.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of people in Scotland who are economically active, unemployed and not receiving unemployment benefit.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Based on the labour force survey results from 1987 to 1990 an estimated annual average of 90,000 people in Scotland fell within the International Labour Organisation definition of unemployed, but were not included in the monthly claimant count statistics. This compares with 80,000 people in the claimant count who did not fall within the ILO definition of unemployed.
    Mr. Hughes: Do not the figures show the damaging effects of the Government's policy on unemployment in Scotland? Does the Minister accept that, after we have discounted the 23 fiddles on the figures that he has carried out, the true figure for unemployment in Scotland is over 350,000—110,000 more than the figure to which he officially admits? When will the Minister throw off his damaging complacency and act to remove this black spot from the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Stewart: The House will recognise why the hon. Gentleman has made those somewhat uncharacteristic partisan comments. No doubt he is worried about his marginal seat. Since January 1987, unemployment in Grampian has fallen by about 13,350. It is undoubtedly the case that his area of the country has been doing extremely well economically under this Government. That cannot be denied. That is why the Conservatives will do particularly well in the north-east of Scotland in the forthcoming election.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that the figures will not be helped if the speculation about the Gartcosh recycling paper project, which appeared in this morning's press, has any accuracy at all? Would it not be a disaster if Germany succeeded where we failed? Does he also accept that unless he gives full encouragement to Dumbarton Enterprise and the Lanarkshire development agency, this project will not succeed and that Gartcosh will therefore become, for the second time, the location for a Tory industrial disaster?
    Mr. Stewart: It certainly would not be helped by the prospect of a Scottish assembly. That is for certain. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman, however, because I recognise that he is representing the concerns of his constituents, that I do not comment on speculative reports. May I also underline the massive support that the Government are giving to Lanarkshire. A question appears later on the Order Paper about that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to see me personally about that project, I shall be happy to meet him.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend accept that to many people south of the border the Scots have the reputation of being hardy, robust, tough, thrifty if somewhat dour people, as borne out by the fact that there are more people in work in Scotland now than there were in 1979, that Scottish exports are far higher now than they were in 1979 and that Scottish manufacturing exports are far higher now than they were in 1979? Is it not a shame that that positive image is so often threatened by the whingeing, whining, craven attitude of so many of the Members of Parliament whom the Scots choose to send to Westminster?
    Mr. Stewart: I feel that I have to disagree with my hon. Friend. I have never before been described as somewhat dour, but my hon. Friend's basic case is absolutely right. There is no doubt at all, as every commentator has confirmed, that during the present world recession the Scottish economy has been doing extremely well. We are coming through the problems extremely well in order to face the challenges of the future. That is a tribute to a very large number of people in industry, in management and in the trade union movement. My hon. Friend is right to point out that we in Scotland should be proud of our achievements.

    Borders Economy
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to assist the prospects of the local economy in the Borders region; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Borders region benefits, along with the rest of Scotland, from the Government's firm economic policies which are aimed at further reducing inflation and reducing cost and other burdens on industry. In addition, since April of last year, Scottish Borders Enterprise has been able to bring to bear substantial public resources through integrated training, economic development and environmental activity.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister agree that the recent disturbingly high increase in the percentage rates of unemployment in the region underscore the urgent need for Government action now? Does he also agree that

    959
    because the Borders region is denied access to development assistance of any kind, either from the Treasury or from the European Community, the prospects for the local economy are damaged? Can he give an undertaking now to review urgently in the next Parliament the whole question of the criteria for eligibility for development aid status and in particular to reconsider urgently the region's claim, so that it can deal with some of its economic problems?
    Mr. Stewart: It is the Government's intention to review the assisted area map in the next Parliament. I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are substantial arguments in favour of a period of stability for the boundaries of a particular assisted area. I do not underestimate the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but may I emphasise that Scottish Borders Enterprise has been doing a great deal with the support of hon. Members and others to assist the economy of the borders. For example, Scottish Borders Enterprise has provided £1 million to support the borders textiles initiative. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) have asked for a meeting with me to discuss the matters. I understand from my office that the date of that meeting has been agreed.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that one of the biggest handicaps for the economy of the borders and adjacent regions is the intolerably dangerous and congested A1 road? Now that the Government have figures which confirm that the A1 in my constituency is carrying as much traffic as the A74 and 35,000 people have signed a petition calling for dualling of the A1, will he confirm reports that the Government are about to concede the case for dualling? If so, will he accept that that death-bed conversion of the Government will be most welcome?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not read of any commitment by the Labour party to increase expenditure on Scottish roads. Has the hon. Gentleman checked that with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)? There is no such commitment. The A1 steering group, which was set up by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), comprises officials of all the relevant authorities and is monitoring traffic and accidents on the A1 so that priority can be given to accident remedial action. A route action plan in respect of the A1 between Edinburgh and Newcastle is being developed. The Government's position on improvements to the A1 is clear, but there is still no commitment from the Labour party.
    Sir David Steel rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. McMaster.
    Mr. McMaster: No. 8, Sir.
    Sir David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must take his chance on these matters. I have already called one hon. Member from his party. With the best will in the world, I cannot call every hon. Member who has a constituency interest in every question.
    Sir David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall not take the point of order in the middle of Question Time. The right hon. Gentleman can raise it afterwards.
    Sir David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not taking his point of order in the middle of Question Time.

    Social Problems
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss strategies to tackle social problems.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have had useful meetings with the convention's social work committee to discuss our community care strategy and residential care. I see no reason why this should not continue for many years.
    Mr. McMaster: Does the Minister recall that it was his Government which told young Scots to get on their bikes if they had no hopes and no homes? Does he realise that many thousands of young Scots took that advice and came to London, only to find cardboard homes and cardboard hopes? Will he support the campaign launched by Centrepoint today and even at this late stage, after 13 wasted years of Tory rule, take steps urgently to end the housing crisis in Scotland and to give our young people a future there?
    Mr. Forsyth: It is this Government who have given young people a guarantee of a place in higher or further education or training. No other Government have done that. On housing, does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Government have spent £1 billion every year since 1989 on housing in Scotland? Is he unaware of the action which my hon. Friend took this very week when he distributed another £7·5 million to local authorities to deal with homelessness? The hon. Gentleman should recognise what the Government have done and he should also recognise that his party is promising nothing in this area.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of Scottish local authority support for constitutional change, will the Minister tell us which of the Prime Minister's weekend statements he agrees with—the one on Saturday when he resolutely defended the status quo or the one on Monday morning when he was forced to admit that he would have to take stock of the situation after the general election? Bearing in mind that the majority of people in Scotland want a Scottish Parliament with legislative and economic powers, does the Minister support his Prime Minister in encouraging the people of Scotland to take the zero option by achieving a complete wipe-out of Scottish Tory Members at the next general election, including the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman had been certain about the Labour party's prospects in Stirling, he would not have run away to Falkirk when he was the Member of Parliament for part of that area. The Prime Minister's message was clear. The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated

    961
    today that those who wish to preserve the Union with the United Kingdom have only one party to vote for at the general election and that is the Conservative party.
    Mr. Worthington: Will the Minister meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities urgently to discuss the problem of mounting youth unemployment in Scotland? To use just one example, in Strathclyde there is now a shortfall of 3,700 training places. A total of 3,000 fewer training places have been offered this year than last. How can the Minister claim that the guarantee is being met when there is such a shortfall? When he meets COSLA, will he discuss Scottish Enterprise's training budget? Figures that I have obtained from Scottish Enterprise make it clear that there has been a cut of 15 per cent. overall at a time of mounting youth and adult unemployment. Nearly 20 per cent. has been cut from the training budget. There is mounting long-term unemployment—
    Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Nothing out of order has occurred.
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is making a speech.
    Mr. Speaker: That is up to me.
    Mr. Worthington: In 1988–89 the Government cut the training budget because they said that there was falling unemployment. Why, when there is mounting unemployment, have they cut the training budget for Scottish Enterprise by 15 per cent?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman surely knows that we are spending 2·5 times as much on training as the last Labour Government. That is undeniable. The hon. Gentleman has come to the House and asked about unemployment when he is a member of a party that wishes to put a tax on jobs through its training levy, wishes to destroy employment by introducing a minimum wage and, worst of all, wishes to make Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom with its proposal for an assembly. Those policies would destroy jobs. The hon. Gentleman knows that and it is why he does not want to hear the facts.

    Scotland in Europe
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the European Commission to discuss Scotland's role in Europe.
    Mr. Lang: I met President Delors and Commissioners Milian and Brittan in Brussels in March 1991 and Commissioners MacSharry and Andriessen in Strasbourg in July 1991 to discuss issues of relevance to Scotland.
    Mrs. Michie: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most important issues facing Scotland today is the future of the fishing industry? Will he give an undertaking to the House today that he will lead the United Kingdom delegation in the forthcoming talks on the common fisheries policy so that he can be actively involved in securing EC money for a decommissioning scheme? He must agree that fishing is a top priority. If he will not do that, it is yet another reason for us to have a Scottish Parliament to look after our own affairs.
    Mr. Lang: I take a great and close interest in fishing matters and the Scottish Office has been represented at no fewer than 17 Councils of fishing and agriculture Ministers over the past three years. I believe that our changed proposals for the tying-up arrangements have been widely welcomed by the fishing industry. If a Scottish Parliament were set up in Edinburgh and took control of fisheries matters, Scotland's voice at the centre, where it matters, would be substantially diminished because responsibility would continue to reside with the United Kingdom Parliament.
    Mr. Wray: Can the Secretary of State for Scotland explain to the House what would happen if Scotland were to renegotiate the terms? Would not it find itself in the same position as Greenland, which had to get permission from the Danish Parliament to clear the road? It would have to be accepted by the European Parliament. Bureaucrats in Brussels are getting ready to jackboot smaller countries by asking them to enter into a troika agreement to takeover the presidency.
    Mr. Lang: Constitutional change of the kind envisaged by the Scottish National party or by the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats would undermine Scotland's access to the Commission and the European Community and our ability to represent our case there. The best prospect that Scotland has in Europe and within the United Kingdom is to remain within the United Kingdom Parliament.
    Mr. Gill: Having heard the answer that my right hon. Friend gave—
    Hon. Members: "Who is this?"
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In a United Kingdom Parliament, the hon. Gentleman has a right to put a question.
    Mr. Gill: Is there any area in which an independent Scotland would have more influence in the European Community than under the present arrangements?
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot think of any.

    Mallaig Road
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland what progress there has been on the Fort William to Mallaig road.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Since 1985, two major schemes worth more than £8 million have been completed on the A830. The additional funding for roads announced by the Secretary of State means that we plan to start the Morar bypass scheme in the coming financial year, 1992–93.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Minister agree that the exciting proposals for the development of Mallaig harbour, which are with the Scottish Office, make it urgent that the remaining sections of the road are completed as soon as possible?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I believe that this will be very good news indeed for the people of Morar. The hon. Member will be aware that Morar is famous for the northern lights, presented in the Scottish film "Local

    963
    Hero". This will mean that although there may be no oil under Morar or Morar beach, Morar and its inhabitants will soon have a new road.

    Lanarkshire Economy
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the Lanarkshire economy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend has received representations from a number of sources concerning the Lanarkshire economy. A large number of projects, backed by substantial additional resources, are now being undertaken through the Lanarkshire development agency to ensure the successful regeneration of Lanarkshire.
    Dr. Reid: After more than 150 months of this Government and more than 100 Scottish Question Times, do the Secretary of State and his colleagues accept that this is their last opportunity to redeem themselves for the betrayal of the Scottish steel industry? Is the Minister aware that Labour has made it plain that we shall give not only technical but financial assistance to any commercially viable project for developing new technology at Ravenscraig? On this last occasion before Ministers demit office, will they give a pledge that the Government will match our pledge of financial and technical assistance for the Lanarkshire steel industry to develop thin-slab technology? If the Minister cannot give that pledge, the day after the next election they will not be taking stock but will be a laughing stock in Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: I must remind the hon. Gentleman of the provisions of the treaty of Paris, which his party accepts, does it not? On the hon. Gentleman's second question about financial resources, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided that overall resources available to the Scottish Enterprise network for next year, subject to the approval of the House, will be increased by £9·6 million over the total that he announced last autumn. We have received reasoned representations from the district councils in Lanarkshire concerning the provision of new factories and how they can assist Lanarkshire's economic regeneration. My right hon. Friend intends to increase the resources available to those district councils by about £8 million. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that these figures show a real commitment to Lanarkshire. I do not in any way underestimate his commitment to his constituents, but when we debated these matters the Opposition Front Bench did not promise an extra penny for Lanarkshire if there were to be a Labour Government.
    Mr. Dewar: One of the key agencies in the fight to strengthen the Lanarkshire economy is the Lanarkshire development agency. Will the Minister guarantee that local enterprise companies will get at least as much money next year in real terms as they are getting in the current year? Does he accept that today's announcement about the Scottish Enterprise budget for 1992–93 will be seen as election window dressing? Will he confirm that the Scottish Office is finding only an additional £1 million from its own resources and that its contribution to Scottish Enterprise will fall next year by almost £15 million?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman shows his customary predilection for turning good news into misery at every possible opportunity. I repeat the figures: my right hon.
    964
    Friend has announced that the resources available to the Scottish Enterprise network are being increased to £462·6 million, an increase of £9·6 million on the total announced last autumn. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman gave no commitment that the resources would be increased if there were a Labour Government. Indeed, he has not denied that the resources might even be reduced if there were a Labour Government.

    Constitutional Reform
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make changes to the current structure of government in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: The Government are consulting at present on possible changes to the structure of local government in Scotland.
    Mr. Watson: If the Secretary of State believes what he has recently been saying about the constitutional issue in Scotland, he is gravely mistaken. He is only human and we all make mistakes from time to time, but the key is whether we learn from them. The Secretary of State has consistently refused to learn from his often-repeated mistake of assuming that he knows what is best for the people of Scotland and that they do not. Let me spell out what they have been saying to him in opinion polls for some time—the status quo is not an option. The Prime Minister appears to have grasped that fact, as have some of his parliamentary candidates, so when will the Secretary of State grasp it and enter the real world of Scottish politics?
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman believes that Scotland's future is not to remain within the United Kingdom Parliament, he had better stand up and say so and then join a party which represents that view.

    Teacher Training
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to bring the teacher training programme in Scotland into line with that applying in England.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The teacher training reforms in England will bring practice near to that followed at present in Scotland. As part of a review, a pilot which will provide even more school-based training for secondary teachers will be carried out by Moray House college of education.
    Mr. Steen: Does the Secretary of State agree that the importance of teacher training is such that more time should be spent with children and chalk rather than ideological and philosophical lectures? Does he agree that he should tell the Secretary of State for Education and Science that it would be best to follow the two-year probationary procedure in England because it is well known in Scotland to produce excellent teachers? Does he also agree that the experiments being carried out in Moray House and its excellent record are second to none?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. I make it clear to the House that in Scotland it has been the practice for teacher training to be much more classroom based and I should like to see further progress in that respect. I agree that people south of the border can learn from what has been achieved there.

    Farming and Crofting
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to meet the chairman of the National Farmers Union of Scotland to discuss the future of farming and crofting.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. Friend expects to meet the president of the National Farmers Union on 5 March at its annual conference. My noble Friend the Minister responsible for agriculture in Scotland and I will also be present.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that farm incomes in Scotland in the past five years have fallen by 47 per cent. and in the past year by 38·5 per cent? As he approaches the negotiations for reform of the common agricultural policy, what steps will Scottish Ministers take to reverse that trend?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the serious decline that has taken place in farm incomes and right to underline the importance of the negotiations on CAP reform. It is vital that the discriminatory proposals emanating from Commissioner MacSharry should be resisted. They would be a disaster for Scottish farming and the Government will fight them every inch of the way.

    Housing Investment
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland what plans he has to stimulate housing investment in Edinburgh.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Edinburgh district council's provisional housing capital allocations for 1992–93 total over £53 million. In addition, I understand that Scottish Homes plans to spend over £24 million in Edinburgh in 1992–93.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that these changes are trivial compared with the hundreds of millions of pounds of Government support for housing which Edinburgh and other Scottish cities have lost as a result of changes in policy introduced by the Conservative party over the past 12 years? Edinburgh faces a desperate housing crisis. When will the Government face up to that? Surely, as a Member representing Edinburgh, the Minister appreciates that hundreds of families are suffering as a result of the desperate shortage of homes to let there.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The last Labour Government enormously reduced capital allocations for housing. In the accounts sent in by Edinburgh district council—a Labour-controlled body—the £45 million that it would cost to complete the backlog was missed out. We are now sorting that out; we have made an allocation of £12·9 million and we will fully consider Edinburgh's claims when we make the final allocations in early March.

    Points of Order
    3.31 pm
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given the relevant Member notice. Has the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) asked leave to make a personal statement about the
    966
    misstatements that he made at column 163 during last week's health questions regarding cataract operations in Bath? Those statements have been corrected today in The Times. They were wholly misleading, and it is quite wrong that Hansard should contain mistakes of that nature.
    Mr. Speaker: I have not had any request of that sort—
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Nor am I responsible for answers given at Question Time.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I will take Sir David Steel.
    Sir David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will take it as a kindly gesture on the eve of your retirement if I offer you a map of Scotland. I happen to be one of only two Members representing the Borders region, yet you called a Member from outside that area earlier. I do not object to that, but, given that I was referred to in the Minister's answer, I do think I might have been called.
    Mr. Speaker: I know that, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I had to have regard to the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) had Question 14. At Scottish questions I try to get at least to Question 15, which we just achieved today. If I called every hon. Member with a constituency interest, on Question 4, for instance, I would have had to call about half a dozen from the Lothian region. It is just not possible.
    Mr. Alexander Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As it now seems to be in order to complain, may I tell you that after 26 years in this House this was my last chance to have a say in Scottish Question Time. So I was surprised that you did not call me, given that I am one of the senior Members here and I made every endeavour to catch your eye. I wish you well in your retirement, but I am disappointed that I did not have the opportunity to be called on this occasion.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry too. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to come and have a glass of Scottish wine with me some time.
    Several Hon. Members rose—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you call Question 16 as the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) shouted:
    "On a point of order"?
    I thought that I heard you call Question 16.
    Mr. Speaker: Actually, I did not. I had hoped to be able to do so, but my eye was caught by 3:31 on the clock, so it was not possible.
    Mr. Max Madden: May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my point of order is not prompted by the very generous offer that you have just made? Many of us expected that it might have been made more widely, but never mind.

    967
    I raise a matter with you as guardian of the interests of all hon. Members. Officials of the British and Indian Governments are negotiating an extradition treaty. I am advised that the conclusion of a treaty is an act of state, but that, if the international obligations of such a treaty are to be capable of being enforced in the courts of this country, there must be an amendment to an existing Act of Parliament or statutory instrument giving effect to the provisions of any treaty.
    As an extradition treaty between this country and India would have profound political repercussions, may I ask you to make inquiries into the matter to assure the House that, if such a treaty is signed, all hon. Members will have a proper opportunity to consider and debate the matter before any treaty is signed and before Parliament is dissolved?
    Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of what the hon. Gentleman is alleging. I will certainly look into the matter—although it is, of course, a matter for the Government and not for me.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer to a disturbing report in The Guardian this morning, which was headed: "Ford switch to Germany may cost 1,200 UK jobs"?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the point. The report says "may". It is a hypothetical question and not a matter of order for me now.
    Mr. Clarke: With respect, the report says that Ford has confirmed that a study is taking place. My question—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should raise the matter with the Government tomorrow at business questions, when he may well get an answer. Reports of discussions that may be about to take place are not a matter of order for me.
    Mr. John McFall: May I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that I was not called at the last Scottish Question Time and that today, although I stood up for seven separate questions, I was yet again not called? This is a day for not being served. In the light of your offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), may I say that my constituency is the home of Scotch whisky—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Indeed. Speaker's Choice whisky is based in Dumbarton. In the light of your treatment of me today, any potential offer of whisky on my part will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Speaker: I was about to say to the hon. Gentleman that he was welcome to come as well, but could he kindly bring a sample with him?
    Mr. David Winnick: I wonder whether you can satisfy my curiosity—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Speaker: Let us get on with it. That is hypothetical too.
    Mr. Winnick: You will know that there is invariably a Government statement on Opposition days. Sometimes you decide to limit the exchanges. Why is it that, whenever there is a Government motion down for debate, as there is today, there is never a statement? Is there any link?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. A large number of hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. Of course, the Opposition will seek to amend the Government's motion, so we shall debate that.
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, during Scottish Question Time, the Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), falsely accused me of moving my parliamentary base from Stirling to Falkirk. I have never in my parliamentary history had the privilege of representing the people of Stirling. The hon. Gentleman who made that false accusation will soon be deprived of that privilege.
    Mr. Speaker: On that note, we shall move on to the ballot for notices of motions.

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 13 MARCH
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Sir Michael Neubert

  Mr. Ray Powell

  Mr. Andrew Rowe

  BILL PRESENTED
    HARE COURSING
    Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Peter Griffiths, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Steve Norris, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Andrew Welsh, presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland).
  That the Matter of the constitutional implications for Scotland of a Scottish Parliament, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
  Question agreed to.

Elimination of Poverty in Retirement
3.40 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities and health authorities to monitor the condition of their retired population; to eliminate standing charges on gas, electricity and water; to exempt pensioners from licence charges and telephone rental; to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes; to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings; and to appoint a Minister with responsibility for retired people.
This is the eighth time that I have tried to introduce the Bill. On every occasion, I have been given permission to bring in the Bill, but it has been subsequently blocked by a Tory Whip muttering, "Object," in a guilty whisper, because the Government are not prepared to debate the issue.
The Bill would make life far better for the 10 million people in this country who are retired, who have made a great contribution to our society and who have given us the standard of living that we currently enjoy. We should treat them with dignity and respect in retirement, instead of the poverty in which so many of them must live.
The old-age pension was first introduced not by the munificence of the then Liberal Government but by the demands of trade unions and ordinary people that the state should provide a decent old-age pension for people who had given a lifetime of work, whether at home, in a factory or wherever else. Now, after 12 years of this Government, from 1 April the old-age pension will be £54·80 per week. It should be £71·80 per week. For a married couple, the pension will be £86·70 per week. It should be £114·70 a week. In other words, pensioners have had £17·65 a week stolen by the break of the link with earnings in 1980 and the substitution of the link with prices. Likewise, the married couple's pension has been reduced by £28 per week.
The Government claim that there has been a 36 per cent. increase in the incomes of pensioner families during their term of office. That is simply and absolutely untrue for the majority of pensioners. In 1979, only 14 per cent. of households were below 50 per cent. of average national income. By 1988, that figure had more than doubled, to 38 per cent. It is a measure of the Government's record that pensioners are getting historically low pensions, historically living in greater poverty and historically having greater difficulties surviving because the Government's strategy is continually to reduce the level of state benefit and state old-age pension in favour of private pension schemes and private insurance schemes.
From investigations into the scandal of the Maxwell and Mirror pension funds, one can see the security and safety of investing money in a casino economy when pensioners should be guaranteed a decent state pension in retirement and not have to rely on the vagaries of the stock market.
The link with retail prices introduced by the Government in 1980 is a double con. It is a con because retail prices have risen less quickly than earnings, but it is a double con because research shows that the index for pensioners is considerably different from the price index for the rest of the population. For example, in the third quarter of 1991 the Government told us that retail prices for all items increased by 4·8 per cent. However, the
970
increase in prices paid by pensioner households, who tend to spend more on fuel and other such items, was 7·2 per cent. That is not reflected in the state old-age pension.
In other words, if we add up all the money that has been stolen from pensioners in the past 12 years, we find an annual theft of more than £5 billion from pensioner households. That has been handed out in tax relief to the very rich in our society. That is a measure of the contempt in which the Government hold those who served the community so well during their working life.
Likewise, the change in the system of the state earnings-related pension scheme has taken £2 billion from Government income. Again, that is money which has gone into the private sector. We want an understanding that people who have worked during their lives, be it in their home, their factory or wherever, deserve to be paid a decent state pension during retirement. [Interruption.] If that is more than Conservative Members can cope with, they are welcome to leave.
My Bill makes eight proposals in all. They are straightforward and simple. The first is an immediate restoration of the link between the state old-age pension and average earnings, which was broken in 1980. That will restore the money that has been stolen from pensioners in the past 12 years. The second is that, during the lifetime of a Parliament, we should make the state old-age pension half average earnings for a couple and a third for a single pensioner. That would be a considerable increase and would bring us roughly in line with the average rate of old-age pension in comparable industrial economies around the world.
If other countries can pay such levels of pension, it can be done in Britain. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may call out, "Where will the money come from?" I can think of an awful lot of sources. First, we could restore a fair system of taxation to replace the unfair system from which the rich have gained more than £25 billion in tax handouts in the past 12 years. The £24 billion-a-year arms bill would also be a useful source of money to increase the standard of living of old-age pensioners.
The third proposal is to ensure serious co-ordination of Government policy as it affects pensioners. There should be a Minister whose job is to co-ordinate that policy, because pensioners require not only a decent level of state old-age pension, but access to luncheon clubs and day centres. They require home carers, a decent health service, a decent transport service and access to facilities such as libraries and adult education. Retirement should not be the end of life. It should be a period of enjoyment and development, not the misery of worrying about how one is to make ends meet.
The fourth and fifth proposals of the Bill are that every health authority should be required to make a public annual report on what facilities it makes available to pensioner households within its district. I often feel that the health needs of pensioners, whether for chiropody services, stress clinics or other special services that pensioners might need, are often forgotten because pensioners are not so able and articulate a lobby as some of the more professional groups who represent the better-off in our community. Such a report would at least analyse what facilities were available. It would also analyse the causes of death and rates of death through hypothermia and all the other injustices that occur in our society.

971
My fifth proposal is that local authorities should likewise be required to produce an annual report on the services they provide for the elderly. It would show that, increasingly in the past few years, local authorities have sought to charge for home carers who come into pensioners' homes. They have done so because they have had to make financial cuts.
Local authorities have had to restrict library opening hours, cut the numbers going to luncheon clubs and cut adult education and many social facilities, including such crucial things as holidays.
An annual report would not solve all those problems, but at least it would force local authorities to recognise the importance of their services to pensioner households.
The sixth proposal will find general favour. It is generally recognised that a poll tax is an unfair form of taxation, and that is why the Government are abolishing it. The imposition of standing charges for gas, electricity, telephone, water, and television licences is unfair on pensioner households. I propose that they should be abolished so that such households would pay less for gas and electricity. There would be an absolute prohibition on the disconnection of services to those households. Last year, 370 deaths were recorded as a result of hypothermia. I think that that was an understatement of the case, because many coroners and doctors are reluctant to put hypothermia as the cause on death certificates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) tried to introduce the seventh proposal early in 1987, but it was tragically defeated when the Government brought in the payroll vote. Its aim was to provide free television licences for pensioners. Television is normal, and I do not understand why pensioners should be expected to pay for such licences.
The final proposal is on concessionary fares and free-fare schemes. London pensioners enjoy free fares because the Greater London council introduced that scheme, and even this Government have been forced to maintain the system. I propose that such a scheme should be introduced throughout the country.
The Bill will dramatically improve the lot of pensioners, and I look forward to the support of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Bernie Grant.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities and health authorities to monitor the condition of their retired population; to eliminate standing charges on gas, electricity and water; to exempt pensioners from licence charges and telephone rental; to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings; and to appoint a Minister with responsibility for retired people: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 93].

Inflation
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Although I do not propose to put a 10-minute limit on speeches, I hope that hon. Members who are called early in the debate will set a good example by speaking for not more than 10 minutes; then all hon. Members who wish to participate will be called.
3.53 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move,
That this House congratulates the Government on its prudent economic policies, which have led to a substantial reduction in inflation; notes that the level of inflation in the United Kingdom has been half that under the previous Government, is now below the average for the European Community and close to the level in Germany; notes further that low inflation is essential to a sustained recovery in output and employment; and draws attention to the policies of Her Majesty's Opposition, which would inevitably lead to higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
If anyone wants to know what a Labour Government would be like, the last 10 minutes were an entertaining trailer. It should have come with a Government health warning.
The control of inflation is the cornerstone of Government economic policy. It is not some dogmatic genuflection to an empty shrine, but absolutely central to the prosperity of our country. What is at stake when one debates inflation is fundamental. I cannot improve on the formulation of Sir Brian Corby, the president of the Confederation of British Industry in a speech towards the end of last year. Speaking about what is at stake, he said:
"We have a genuine prospect of a stable economic climate based on low inflation in the 1990s. We should not be complacent about it. Our success will hinge on squeezing out the pervasive inflationary psychology at all levels of the economy and society."
In advocating the control of inflation, one is advocating a priority not for Government but for business, and a priority to which all business organisations subscribe. It is a sensible priority for the individual and for people on fixed incomes whose savings were ravaged by inflation in the 1970s. It is a priority for every family in the country, as one statistic drawn from the 1970s can prove. During the lifetime of the last Labour Government, money wages doubled, but the real take-home pay of the average family did not increase at all as a result of the pernicious combination of high inflation and high taxation. There is no reason to think that the combination would be any different under a future Labour Government.
Mr. Frank Haynes: What about unemployment?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) will agree that Whips should give a lead in good behaviour.
Mr. Mellor: It is rather an honour to be barracked by the oldest hooligan in the business.
Mr. Dave Nellist: One of the classic definitions of the cause of inflation is that it occurs when too much money is chasing too few goods. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that the danger for the 1990s is that the fall in production, especially in manufacturing, and the fall of almost 35 per

973
cent. in two successive years in fixed capital formation, could mean that inflation could return, not because people are being paid too much but because his Government and their policies are destroying the productive side of the economy?
Mr. Mellor: Far from it. The very people who manufacture implore the Government and would implore a Labour Government, if there were to be one, to create a stable price environment in which they can compete. The record shows a 5 per cent. increase in exports to the European Community over the past 12 months. Even in 1991, a year of recession, our share of world trade in manufactures increased for the third year running. That shows what manufacturers can do in a stable environment.
I stress again that the argument for the control of inflation is fundamental to all that organised British business says when it speaks and makes representations to the Government. The cost to business of getting it wrong is enormous. In a speech a few months ago, Sir John Banham said:
"We must redouble our efforts to squeeze inflation out of our economy, which costs business some £5 billion for each percentage point every year."
That is the cost to business of getting the decisions wrong.
It is a sign of success, a sign that we have the climate for recovery in this country, that inflation has fallen sharply to stand this month at 4·1 per cent., which is within a tenth of a percentage point of German rates. I am always keen to encourage the active participation of Opposition Members. Can any of them say at what time during the term of the last Labour Government inflation was within a tenth of a percentage point of German rates?
There can be no answer, because, in 1975, inflation in Britain was 24·2 per cent. and in Germany it was 5·9 per cent. In 1976, inflation in Britain was 16·5 per cent. and in Germany it was ·3 per cent. The figures for 1977 are 15·8 per cent. in Britain and 3·8 per cent. in Germany. Even after the beneficial impact of the International Monetary Fund, the figures in 1978 were 8·3 per cent. in Britain and 2·6 per cent. in Germany.
Today this country has a competitive climate that did not exist and never looked like existing when Labour was in office. Our inflation rate is now almost 1 per cent. lbelow the European Community average. Producer prices on the best measure— that is, manufacturing output excluding food, drink and tobacco—are 3·1 per cent., the lowest for a quarter of a century. Indeed, the three-month on three-month rate of producer prices is down to an annual rate of 2·2 per cent.
In other words, an era of stable prices against which British industry can perform and out-perform the best in Europe and in the world is available to us. We have a low-strike economy in which people can have sensible wage increases and which can deliver low inflation and a real increase in living standards—rather than funny money chasing massively inflated prices, as happened in the 1970s. That is the difference between the record of this Government and the alternative offered by the Labour party.
Mr. David Winnick: If we are in the competitive state that the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims, why is it that Britain is now in the second major recession since the Government took office in 1979? Why have tens of thousands of small businesses in the west midlands and elsewhere collapsed in recent
974
times? Why is there such an economic climate that the Government, understandably, have been reluctant to go to the country? When will the Government tell us when unemployment will fall—or will we have to wait until 9 April to elect a Government who will be determined to restore full employment?
Mr. Mellor: In what appears to be the hon. Gentleman's new conversion to the market economy, he must know that there are cycles. He also knows that the key question is who best provides the right climate for recovery. He knows that there are now many more businesses in Britain than there were in 1979. Before the hon. Gentleman, in his inimitable way, reduces this to the lowest common denominator of debate, can he tell us what he would be saying if he were a member of Congress?
Mr. Giles Radice rose—
Mr. Mellor: I note that the hon. Gentleman has been joined by the public school tendency. It is a pernicious combination that is beginning to make me fearful. What would an economic debate be without an intervention from the hon. Gentleman? It is Don Quixote without Sancho Panza.
Mr. Radice: If the battle against inflation is so important, why have we had to win it twice?
Mr. Mellor: If I were the hon. Gentleman's parent, I would be terribly worried about having spent all that money on his education simply to have him raise points like that. I never had that much spent on my education, but I can answer the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Radice: Answer, then.
Mr. Mellor: I am about to do so.
The average level of inflation in Britain in the 1980s was 6·5 per cent., and in the 1970s it was 13·7 per cent. The increase in inflation to a peak of 10 per cent. two years ago was nothing compared with the record of 25 per cent. under the previous Labour Government, when the hon. Gentleman complacently sat on his bottom and supported them through thick and thin. If he wants to know about records, I am happy to compare them. To quote the 1970s actually flatters the Labour party, because its record of 13·7 per cent. degrades to 15·5 per cent. if only the Labour years are counted.
Let us return to the example of Germany—traditionally the strongest economy in Europe. In the 1970s, the average differential between our inflation rate and Germany's was 8·6 per cent. Under this Government, that has been cut to within one tenth of a percentage point. In the 1970s, our inflation rate was more than 4 percentage points worse that that of France, 3 percentage points worse than the European Community average and only 0·3 percentage points better than that of Italy. In the 1980s, we were 0·2 percentage points better than France, 0·3 percentage points better than the European average and 3·3 percentage points better than Italy.
If we are an exporting nation—surely we can agree with Opposition Members on that at least—it must be acknowledged that the climate for exports is enormously improved as a result of that reduction in inflation. The buoyancy of British exports to the European Community, which have increased sharply in volume and value even in the last three years, is a classic example of the improvements that have occurred.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does not the Chief Secretary acknowledge that the greatest reduction in inflation has taken place at a time of deep recession? If recovery arrives, how does he expect that inflation will be controlled? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman hope that, by that time, the United Kingdom will be a member of a single currency union—recovery may well take that long—and that it will then be controlled by an independent European central bank?
Mr. Mellor: There is no reason to believe that the policies that have brought a reduction in inflation to levels that could not have been countenanced in the 1970s will not continue to provide a stable basis for prices ahead. That is not just the Government's case but what others say. Professor MacWilliams of the Confederation of British Industry said in his new year message:
"An end to uncertainty about economic policy would come if the election gives a mandate for a free-market, low-inflation economy, which would help boost business and financial confidence and unblock delayed investment decisions in the second half of 1992. Clearly, though, a change in Government would prolong the uncertainty."
Professor MacWilliams said also:
"Perhaps the best news for 1992 is the prospect of low inflation, which may hit 3 per cent. and stay close to that level. Pay settlements down to half the level of a year ago and productivity growth rising to 6 per cent. make this sustainable."
That is the climate for recovery and low inflation. I do not know that that is on offer from either of the main Opposition parties.
Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that we must go back to the Macmillan Government of the 1950s to find a full year in which Britain last had stable prices? Given the good news about inflation that my right hon. and learned Friend gave the House this afternoon, does he agree that, if we stick within the disciplines of the exchange rate mechanism, stable prices could once again be within sight?
Mr. Mellor: I am sure that stable prices are more in sight now than they have been for a long time—and they will remain so, if there is adherence to the policies that brought them about.
The reaction of Labour Members has been to snipe and to sneer or to hold conversations among themselves when inflation is debated. For instance, I could not help tuning in the other evening, on 13 February, to "The World Tonight", on which it was put to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that inflation had sharply improved. He replied:
"That's not true. Inflation has risen in the last two months, and it is something that this Government has failed to deal with adequately."
The following day, inflation fell from 4·5 per cent. to 4·1 per cent.
It is astonishing that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East and Labour as a whole believe that there is a point to be made about marginal variations in inflation of well under one percentage point, against Labour's record. That is a desperate attempt to discredit our achievements. They will be telling us next that low inflation poses a wicked and evil threat to those on index-linked pensions.
Mr. Paul Flynn: We are always keen to give the Government credit for what they have done. Did the Chief Secretary see Sir Alan Walters's appearance
976
on television about the same time? He was asked to give his reasons for the recession and to apportion blame. He said that it was due 30 per cent. to the world recession and 70 per cent. to the Government's irresponsible mismanagement of the economy. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree?
Mr. Mellor: Is Professor Walters now an adviser to the Labour party? To what other views of his does Labour adhere? I will not join the ancient arguments between Professor Walters and one or two others with whom he disagrees. Chancellor Kohl, after three sucessive quarters in which Germany's gross domestic product has fallen, does not think that the recession was made in Downing street—and it was not much use to President Bush to suggest such a thing in the New Hampshire primary. We ought to be having a sensible debate about how Britain should move towards recovery.
It will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that the London business school recently forecast a growth of nearly 2 per cent. in the British economy this year, and I suspect that other forecasts will point clearly to a recovery this year. The question that Labour must answer, rather than making silly debating points, is what Labour policy would do to inhibit such a recovery from taking place.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
Mr. Mellor: No, I am going to push on.
I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition is with us. Although I do not suppose that a greater torrent of words has ever been unleashed in the history of human civilisation than by the right hon. Gentleman, it is not easy to find much that he has had to say on the subject of inflation. I have had his conference speeches from 1983 analysed—I could not bear to read them all myself. Is it not interesting that, while everyone agrees that the fundamental issue for the British economy is inflation—[Interruption.] Labour Members become worried as soon as the Leader of the Opposition is mentioned.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you agree that it would be a gross constitutional impropriety if the researches mentioned by the Chief Secretary were carried out by civil servants and paid for by the taxpayer. Will the Chief Secretary take this opportunity of confirming that all the studies were carried out by Conservative central office—paid for, presumably, by business men overseas, and not by the taxpayer?
Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me, but I did not hear the Chief Secretary say that.
Mr. Mellor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case. I trust that the use of photocopying facilities in the House by the Labour party is equally subject to his scrutiny, given that he is so censorious.
Let us come to the point. It is beyond denial that the most fundamentally important factor for the success of British industry is low inflation; yet, in his party conference speeches between 1983 and 1988, the Leader of the Opposition did not mention the word "inflation" once. Between 1989 and 1991, he mentioned it only in the context of cheap debating points about the Government's record. Nary a word—[Interruption.] I am glad that the

977
Leader of the Opposition is in such a good mood. Perhaps he is in a good enough mood to remember the occasion when, in answer to a question about how Labour would tackle inflation, he told The Evening Standard—it was published on 26 May 1989—
"To cut a long story short, we don't know."
I am sure that an offence against the Trade Descriptions Act has been committed here. When did the right hon. Gentleman ever cut a long story short?
The information that Labour has no policy on inflation, however, did not constitute a breach of the Official Secrets Act; that has been well known for some time. Lest Labour Members consider this a subject for amusement, and merely a Tory point, let me add that Labour's supporters have been equally nervous about its inability to come up with a sensible and comprehensive policy on inflation.
What about Mr. Ian Aitken, as Labour-inclined a journalist as can be found in this place? Everyone has heard of him. We usually hear hon. Members ask, "Who?" at this point, but no one has done so on this occasion, so I must be talking about someone who is well known to all Opposition Members. In December, Mr. Aitken referred to
"a comprehensive economic policy, capable of answering one very simple question—'what would you do about inflation?' There is, in short, a void at the heart of Labour's economic policy".
What is the answer to that question—posed 15 months ago in The Guardian, which is read by most right hon. and hon. Members opposite?
When is the answer going to come? Does the Labour party seriously think that it will be able to get through the election without providing an answer? The Labour party has had years to think about it. There is going to be a frantic scramble to produce a document before the election. That is not in keeping with the Labour party's reputation as a solid group of citizens who are only too ready to show the public how much they have changed and how ready they are for the burdens of office.
It is perfectly obvious, when one looks at what Labour has said about inflation, that it does not understand it in the slightest degree. The Labour party thinks that the battle against inflation has been the cause of the nation's problems rather than the sine qua non of resolving them. It has opposed every measure that has brought inflation down, and it shows genuine resentment at the success of our policy to do so. It is apparent that the Leader of the Opposition was only too happy, in his days as a wild opponent of what the Government were doing, to stoke up rather than reverse the inflation of the 1970s. He was a particularly wild opponent of the International Monetary Fund and of the measures that were taken to bring control to the British economy.
Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mellor: No. The hon. Gentleman has blown it with a phoney point of order. I cannot believe that his IQ has increased markedly in the last 10 minutes.
Mr. Grocott: Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?
Mr. Mellor: No. I have already said that I do not intend to give way to the hon. Gentleman under any circumstances whatsoever.
Mr. Grocott rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Minister intend to give way?
Mr. Mellor: No.
Mr. Speaker: If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) must resume his seat.
Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman had his chance to exercise his larynx and he abused it, so as far as I am concerned that is it.
Mr. Haynes: Will the Minister give way? Mr. Mellor: Very well.
Mr. Haynes: Will the Minister now compare the unemployment figures of the 1990s with those of the 1970s and 1980s? Will he also compare the crime figures of the 1990s with those of the 1970s and 1980s? He was in the Home Office when they were rocketing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made particular reference to inflation and to the comparisons that could be drawn. How about unemployment and crime that I am now asking him to compare?
Mr. Mellor rose—
Mr. Haynes: Wait a minute; I have not finished yet. The Minister will be aware that I shall be leaving this Chamber —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—to go upstairs to a Committee to do some work there. I am glad that the Minister has given way to me, but instead of me walking out he will be kicked out.
Mr. Mellor: I do not sense that Opposition Front-Bench Members think that the Labour party is going to make a gain in Putney. It has not done very well there for 13 years.
Mr. Grocott rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Grocott: The Minister is being selective in giving way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister may have been selective but he does not intend to give way. Let us get on quietly.
Mr. Mellor: I intend to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).
Mr. Haynes: Two points.
Mr. Mellor: All right, two points. The first one is that, under the last Labour Government, unemployment doubled. [Laughter.] Oh, yes, it did, and it was not a laughing matter. The other point is that the only sensible comparisons are contemporary experience in other countries. Germany has the highest unemployment rate since the Weimar republic. Yesterday, General Motors declared 74,000 redundancies in the United States, and unemployment in France has consistently been higher than unemployment in the United Kingdom during the last five years.
Mr. Haynes: What about the crime figures? Will the Minister say something about them?
Mr. Mellor: No. I have left the Home Office, so I do not intend to deal with the crime figures—not that there is not an answer.
It is wrong to lay all the blame for Labour's inability to mount a coherent policy on inflation on the Leader of the Opposition. That is, after all, why he has a shadow Chancellor. If one looks back at the uncomfortable week—
Mr. John Smith: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mellor: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can contain himself, I am about to come to him. [Interruption.] The Chancellor is working on the Budget. He has got something substantial to do, as one would expect. The privilege of listening to me is afforded to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If he did so, I would sit down much more quickly. He did not have a very good week last week. We learned that some of the natives are getting restless with his supposed moderation, which is not delivering the goods. One minute he is the monarch of the glens; the next some of his colleagues are itching for Scottish devolution so that he can become an immigration officer on one of the less salubrious parts of Hadrian's wall.
The surprising thing is not that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was criticised last week, but how he has escaped criticism for so long, when one considers how long the Labour party has had to come to terms with inflation and how persistently difficult, irresponsible and wrong the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been about the issue. For instance, he always advocates taking the easy way out, the 1 per cent. reduction in interest rates whenever the subject comes up, or investment and training as the answer to everything.
It is what one might call the policy of the parrot house—"One per cent. off, pretty polly, pretty polly"; or, "Investment and training, quack quack, quack quack." Where lies the substance behind the solutions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests? When will we have from the Opposition a coherent policy on inflation? [Interruption.] I am under the illusion that I am in the Cabinet; certainly I have a strong conviction that Opposition Members will not be.
Mr. Grocott rose—
Mr. Mellor: I am fed up with the hon. Gentleman. I am not giving way to him, come hell or high water. I have already made that clear.
Mr. Grocott rose—
Mr. Mellor: He has had his chance, and it is becoming disruptive.
Mr. Grocott rose—
Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman made a bogus point of order and he is now trying to disrupt my speech. I have told him that I am not giving way. If he wishes to try to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may do so.
Sir Ian Stewart: When my right hon. and learned Friend was suggesting that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor, had had a bad week last week, had he noticed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not even been allowed to sign the Opposition amendment?
Mr. Mellor: In the Kremlin, that was usually a bad sign. I do not know what the position is in the Labour party. Perhaps we shall be told. Watch this space, literally and metaphorically.
Mr. Wray rose—
Mr. Mellor: No, I am pushing on. However, I note the hon. Gentleman's application for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's job.
In 1987–88, when, as we now know, interest rates were almost certainly too low, both the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East were calling in the most intemperate terms for interest rates to be further reduced. The fact is that the Labour party subscribed to a range of policies directly designed to put inflation up.
Let us take its minimum wage policy. It is guaranteed to put up inflation and costs. The other day, the Daily Express did a survey of 30 companies, only two of which thought that they could cope with the minimum wage without it sharply affecting their business, costs and prices. There is a problem with the Opposition. They become boring and predictable. I thought to myself that the very mention of the Daily Express would have the Opposition cackling and falling about.
The most prominent company mentioned in the Daily Express survey was Grand Metropolitan plc, a reputable, substantial British company, employing thousands and thousands of people, many of them constituents of Opposition Members. So I got in touch with Grand Met to see whether it had been traduced by the Daily Express. On only one example of its activities, the managed pub business, Grand Met has costed the combined impact of the minimum wage and atypical workers' directives at £15 million a year.
That is the reality of the impact of the minimum wage. [Interruption.] Ah, we have the derisive laugh now. One can always tell when Labour is getting desperate. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) starts laughing unconvincingly. It is not very funny. I dare say that some of those pubs are in his constituency, and that some of his constituents drink in them. They will find the price of their beer going up as a result of the Labour party's nonsense.
Mr. Grocott: The right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Sir I. Stewart) was concerned about who signed the amendment in the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Is it in order for the Chief Secretary to speak in support of the Government motion when he has not signed it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): If it were not in order, he would not have been called.
Mr. Mellor: I am still here, as active as I am capable of being.
The debate needs to be about whether the Labour party will be capable of sustaining stable prices within the United Kingdom economy, which we know to be a fundamental basis for the economic and commercial revival of Britain in the 1990s. We know that it cannot do so. We know that the Labour party's interest rate policy is confined to saying, "One per cent. off."
I hope that I can have the attention of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, at least for the next bit of my speech. If he were ever to achieve office, he

981
would have to be preoccupied with this, and it might he helpful if he were aware of it now. The Labour party is the party of devaluation. The currency went down by 4 per cent. for every year of the last Labour Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been alert to the need to make it clear that that would not happen under a Labour Government. He says, "We would not devalue." There is also his passionate attachment to the exchange rate mechanism, a policy which some of his hon. Friends find chafes a bit. Immediately, there is the prospect of trouble from Labour Back Benchers. During the debate on the economy last week, there were eight speakers from the Labour Back Benches. Four of them advocated devaluation or are exponents of it.
Unlike some of his hon. Friends, I am prepared to accept that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East would not want to devalue the currency. So what premium would a Labour Government be prepared to pay to prove to the international markets that they would not devalue? [Interruption.] Despite all his Winchester erudition, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has missed a fundamental point. We have nothing to prove. Every other country in the ERM had to put up its interest rates over Christmas in the wake of an increase in German rates. We were the only country that did not have to do so.
If the hon. Member for Durham, North doubts that I am making a serious point, perhaps he will believe some of his old school chums from some of the firms in the City. Nature abhors a vacuum, so, because the Labour party will not tell us what premium it would be prepared to pay in order to show that it would defend the value of the currency, the City has been doing the work for it. I shall read out the list that we have obtained.
The DKB bank said that interest rates would be 2 per cent. higher, Nomura said that they would be 2 per cent. higher, Credit Lyonnais said that they could be up to 4 per cent. higher, Kleinwort Benson said 2 per cent. to 4 per cent. higher, the London business school said up to 3 per cent. higher, James Capel said 1 per cent. higher, UBS Phillips and Drew and Midland Montagu said that they would go up.
The Leader of the Opposition knows well Mr. Gavyn Davies of Goldman Sachs. I think that his wife is still employed by the Leader of the Opposition, and he was an adviser. Yet Goldman Sachs says that interest rates would go up. The Confederation of British Industry said that interest rates would go up, BZW said that they would be 1 per cent. higher, London Economics says that they would be 2·5 per cent. higher and the Halifax says that they would go up. That is the reality facing the British people, but the Labour party will not admit it. The price of a Labour Government would be an immediate hike in interest rates, with all the damage that that would cause. That is what the Labour party will have to answer.
The Labour party does not see the ERM as a serious policy commitment: it sees it as a further way of evading the responsibilities of government. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East fails to understand that ERM membership is a commitment to pursue responsible fiscal and monetary policies, not a substitute for them.
There is no better example of sustained irresponsibility than the refusal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition to appreciate the impact on foreign exchange markets and international confidence
982
of calls for reduced interest rates. Labour has had it too easy. It certainly would not have it easy if it were in office, but nor would the rest of us.
The other point that the Labour party must come to terms with is the damage to its reputation done by its failure to control inflation. UBS Phillips and Drew said:
"Labour's image is still tarnished by the rampant inflation of the late 70s. Though memories fade, Labour must impress an electorate sceptical about its ability to manage the economy."
Mr. David Clelland: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
Mr. Mellor: No, I am pushing on now. I have given way a lot.

City analysts have been asking what would be the impact of a Labour Government on inflation. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East is now engaged in conversation with the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). This is worth listening to, because it is not Tory propaganda but what the financial community, who would judge a Labour Government, think Labour is likely to do.
Nine forecasts were made recently. Economists normally do not agree on anything, but this is so clear-cut that they all said that inflation would be higher under a Labour Government. The average is 2·3 per cent. higher in year two, 3·4 per cent. higher in year three and 3·8 per cent. higher in year four. No wonder the Financial Times reports that 87 per cent. of fund managers thought that Labour would not be able to control inflation and only 3 per cent. thought that it would.
The Labour party seems to want to be wilfully blind to this. Returning to things in Putney, we received "Labour News"—"News from Labour in Putney"—I presume that it is pushed through many other doors—which quotes City analysts and says:
"Experts believe that Labour's policies for investment in research and training will make Britain stronger and more prosperous. Labour will build a world class economy."
It does not say which part of the world it has in mind, of course
I should be interested to know what City analysts Labour relies on. It seems to recall that happy old American jibe that the only support that the Labour party is getting for its policies from City analysts is the support that the rope gives the hanged man.
Mr. Peter Hain rose—
Mr. Mellor: Here is an expert on Putney—he lost two elections there.
Mr. Hain: Indeed, but the Chief Secretary will lose to the author of that pamphlet at the next general election.
We have heard a typically juvenile speech from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We have record mortgage repossessions, businesses and investment and output collapsing, and the economy going down the drain, but all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can treat us to is a series of comic turns and cheap jibes. When will he give his policies for getting us out of the economic mess that he and his colleagues have created?
Mr. Mellor: It is a bit rich to be accused of juvenilia by the Peter Pan of student activists.
What has been revealed this afternoon is a formidable case for the Labour party to answer—a formidable case that says that Labour has no policies to control inflation,

983
that it would be unable to control inflation, that inflation would increase to double its present level and that interest rates would have to rise as a consequence of a Labour Government.
People thought that Labour's tax plans were bad enough. When we learned about its tax plans, they thought that the cat had got out of the bag. This afternoon, we have provided the reason why the cat got out of Labour's bag—it did not like what was left in it, still waiting to come out. We are now beginning to know.
As such an array of talent is assembled on the Labour Front Bench, may I pose another question about some of the matters with which we have been dealing this year? We have shone a spotlight on Labour's tax and spending plans, and such is the chaos that the Labour party has had to burn the midnight oil to produce a document trying to reconcile them—the self-inflicted wound of proclaiming its new-found ability to manage the economy competently by having limited spending plans properly costed and carried into effect on the back of tax increases which are themselves properly thought through. We saw how long that lasted—about three minutes—but we now hear about the so-called recovery package whose authors are all in front of me.
The hon. Member for Derby, South says that the package will cost £1 billion, that it is part of Beckett's law and will be introduced straight away, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. However, they neglected to tell the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). In one of his more memorable recent interviews—one does not necessarily expect the right hon. Gentleman to be well briefed, but I do not think that one required a lot of briefing to see what nonsense this is—he said that the recovery package would be paid for out of the recovery that it was supposed to bring about. I assume that that is not Labour party policy, and we shall assume that it is to be introduced straight away.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Mellor: No, I shall carry on, if I may.
We now find that the plot has thickened. We have had a thickened plot in two material respects, on which I shall conclude my remarks. First, the Leader of the Opposition said in an interview in the Financial Times—and it might nevertheless be so—that £800 million of the £1 billion package is to be spent on training. It has been put repeatedly to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East that training is not a short-term measure and can certainly not be dignified with the title of a recovery package which will quickly turn the economy around. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can spare me rejecting that, because I had the privilege of turning on my television set at lunchtime to find him engaged in a sort of post-war altercation after last week's debate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who made this allegation. My right hon. Friend speaks very effectively, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman found to his cost last week.
Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State's name is on the motion on the Order Paper, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman's is not.
Mr. Mellor: Now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got that off his chest, let him listen for a moment. I promise not to detain him for very long.
My right hon. Friend said that training was not a short-term measure, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman hopped up and down on television saying that indeed it was not.
I had great pleasure—and told the House about a great competition about Labour's priorities—in reading the document "Women Today", which turns out to be a Labour party brief. I hope that the hon. Member for Derby, South is concentrating, because I am about to quote her, or what somebody has ill advisedly put into her mouth. The hon. Lady features in the document under the bold headline "We'll put an end to the waste of money". She said:
"We have a very tight series of priorities … we need early investment in education, in training, in industry—the things that will take a long time to show results."
What price the recovery package, the £1 billion bingo which will turn the British economy on straight away? It is inherently risible that a £1 billion package will turn on an economy of £600 billion. It is even more risible when four fifths of it is to be spent on training.
There is a second point on which I would welcome assistance from the Opposition. We want to know how the £800 million might be spent on training. I am aware of the fact that the Labour party has made a commitment which means—as usual, the Labour party has far more interest in trade unions than in some of those who might benefit from public expenditure—that every trainee must have a minimum wage. The cost—
Mrs. Margarat Beckett indicated dissent.
Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the hon. Lady is going to correct that, because if Labour's pledge to give a minimum wage to the unemployed persons who go into training or the pledge involving young people who do youth training is honoured, £630 million of the £800 million would go on paying extra money to existing trainees in order to top them up.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Pathetic!
Mr. Mellor: I did not invent this recovery package, and I would rather have spent my time dealing with more intelligent matters. It is the Opposition who are parading the recovery package. I ask: when is a recovery package not a recovery package? Answer: when it is a piece of nonsense like this one.
I hope that today we will discover something more concrete and more persuasive about the Labour party's policy on inflation. At the moment, Labour's economic policy is a bit like a haggis—for most people it is okay only as long as they do not think too much about what has gone into it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] As usual, Scottish tails are wagging Labour's English dog. They may not be alert to matters of economic policy, but they are alert to my last point. I would be interested to know not only about the contents of a haggis but about the persuasive contents of Labour's anti-inflation policy. I think that we should be told: I hope that we will be told.
4.40 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'believes that inflation, though reduced from levels to which Government policy raised it, has not been conquered, but merely suppressed by high interest rates and the recession they have created, at a cost of rising business failures, mortgage repossessions, and soaring unemployment; and recognising that low inflation is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for recovery, calls upon the Government to introduce measures which include support for investment in manufacturing industry and in training, since without such measures inflationary pressures will simply re-emerge.'.
There are two reasons why we are having today's debate in which the Government boast of today's inflation and interest rates, which are both certainly lower than they were a year ago. The first reason is clear: of what else could they boast—of soaring unemployment, soaring house repossessions, soaring bankruptcies, plummeting investment and negative growth? The Government would have some difficulty talking about any of those, so they do not.
The second reason for this debate is that the Government hope that if they talk enough about their concern for inflation the wish will be taken for the deed. They hope that we will all remember what they said about inflation—the history books are littered with stern words about it—and not what they actually did about it. The Government motion seeks to compare their record not only with that of the previous Labour Government but with that of the European Community, particularly Germany, claiming that inflation is now below the EC average and close to the rate in Germany.
For most of the Government's period in office the yearly average retail prices index has been above the EC average; the last time it fell below it, by a remarkable coincidence, was during and in the aftermath of the Government's first recession in the early 1980s. Only their second recession has again suppressed inflation to below the EC average, and only the strains of German reunification have brought German inflation to the level to which ours has been reduced by recession.
In any case it is only a few months since the Government were telling us that it was wrong to compare the retail prices index with EC inflation figures. We should, they said, use the underlying rate excluding mortgage costs. Of course, that rate does not show the same flattering picture.
The Government's main text, however, is undoubtedly the domestic record and circumstances of the last Labour Government and the record and circumstances of this Government. The Labour Government were elected in February 1974. They inherited the aftermath of the Barber boom—inflation at 13·1 per cent., a public sector borrowing requirement at 6 per cent. of GDP, and a quadrupling of oil prices, as well as rising world commodity prices and disadvantageous terms of trade.
The Labour Government tried to absorb the effects of the oil price rise without a major change of course. In consequence, as the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said in his speech, peak inflation rates of 26 per cent. were reached by 1975, together with an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement to a maximum of over 9 per cent. of GDP—but that, I repeat, was the maximum.
986
The major contributory factors to the peak inflation rate and the peak PSBR level were the levels of inherited inflation and inherited PSBR coupled with the oil price shock—
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No. This was at a time when Britain was a heavy net importer of oil.
By 1979 when Labour left office—[Interruption.]Conservative Members want to know about the record: let them listen to it then.
By 1979, when Labour left office, inflation was at 10·3 per cent.—
Mr. Alistair Burt rose—
Mrs. Beckett: In a moment. That was lower than the level that we had inherited. Unemployment, at more than one million, was falling. Interest rates were at 12 per cent. having averaged 10·7 per cent. It is not only our view that the peak levels of inflation to which I have referred were something to do with what we inherited from the Conservative party—
Mr. Burt rose—
Mrs. Beckett: In a moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to hear the following quotation from the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who said on 12 May 1981:
"Monetary growth was allowed to accelerate rapidly in 1972 and 1973 under the impression that, now the fixed exchange rate discipline was gone, this was the way to increase output. By 1975, inflation, helped by the rise in the price of oil, had risen to 25 per cent."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman fairly made the point that the Labour Government's inheritance contributed to that level of inflation—
Mr. Burt rose—
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim rose—
Mrs. Beckett: Not for a few more moments. Between 1974 and 1979 the PSBR fell again to 5 per cent. of GDP, lower not only than the peak but than the inherited figure.
Tory Members always talk about the record of the last Labour Government, so I repeat that, when we left office, inflation was lower than the figure that we inherited from the Conservatives, as was the PSBR. That Labour Government not only lowered inflation and the PSBR but achieved average growth of 2·2 per cent., more than the average in these recent years, and laid the foundations for the flow of revenues from the North sea which would amount to more than £100 billion in today's prices—a sum that shielded this Government for so long from the disastrous effects of their incompetence. These were the circumstances and the record of the last Labour Government, and now I shall give way.
Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady skipped conveniently from 1975 to 1979. What do the letters IMF mean to her?
Mrs. Beckett: They mean the International Monetary Fund to me; I am not sure what they mean to the hon. Gentleman, or what they have to do with the fact that inflation was lowered by the Labour Government, as was the PSBR.
Mr. Burt rose—
Hon. Members: Give way!
Mrs. Beckett: No, once is enough.
I come now to what the Conservative party really wants to hear about—the record of the Conservative Government. Conservative Members are delighted with that record so they must be anxious to hear what it is—
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mrs. Beckett: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman seemed incapable a few moments ago of distinguishing my sex, so I feel disinclined to give way to him. Perhaps he needs glasses.
In May 1979, this Government came to power. In their June 1979 Budget the Government raised VAT from 8 to 15 per cent. That alone added four percentage points to the retail prices index. In their Budget of June 1979 they reduced subsidies for prices such as those for gas and electricity, which added another 2·5 per cent. to the retail prices index. Interest rates in that same Budget were raised by 2 per cent. and peaked at 17 per cent. in November 1979. There were other factors which affected the rate of inflation, but these were within the Government's discretion. Earlier, the Chief Secretary quoted Sir Brian Corby on the rooting out of inflationary psychology applying to all levels of society, including the Government.
The VAT rise especially was made to pay for the pre-election promise to cut taxes on incomes, and it was made in the belief—[Interruption.] I will explain in the fullness of time, if hon. Members will be patient—and listen, of course. It was made with a belief in the magical properties of controlling the money supply—a process that seemed to be believed, at least by some, to ensure no increase in inflation, no matter what other policy changes were made.
It was small wonder that by May 1980 inflation had reached 21·9 per cent.—more than double the rate that the Conservative Government inherited—with at least 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. of that increase being inflationary own goals inflicted by the Government to allow them to cut taxes.
Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No.
The economy was forced into recession, unemployment soared to 3 million—a rate of 13·3 per cent., which was 7 per cent. higher than in 1979. We lost 20 per cent. of our manufacturing capacity. However, by 1983 and with the approach of a general election, those policies, a fall in the price of oil and other commodities, and the emergence of more favourable terms of trade all contributed to bringing inflation and interest rates down, although gross domestic product and manufacturing investment had been savaged and were both below the level inherited by this Government in 1979.
Mr. Quentin Davies: How is increasing the tax burden on savings income supposed to increase investment?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that our proposal for a charge on investment income above—[HON. MEMBERS: "A tax."] A charge. When the Conservatives put up national insurance contributions
988
from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent., was that a tax? Conservatives did not say that it was a tax. If a charge is a tax, so is that on national insurance contributions, which the Conservatives increased from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent. That was a tax increase.
I return to the question put by the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), as hon. Members clearly prefer me to deal with that point. We have made the point on many occasions in the House that the proposed charge will simply put people with investment incomes on individual investment holdings of probably well over £30,000 on the same basis as those who have similar sums of earned income. That seems to us to be fair and that is why we propose it.
Mr. Mellor rose—
Mrs. Beckett: No, I shall not give way because I am in the middle of a point about inflation. I will come back to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
In June 1983, the date of the general election, inflation was brought down by those methods to 3·7 per cent. and interest rates were 9·5 per cent. Within two years of the 1983 election, in June 1985—
Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No.
Mr. Oppenheim: Why not?
Mrs. Beckett: Because every time I give way to the hon. Gentleman he asks the same silly question. I am bored with it.
Mr. Oppenheim: I have a new question.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not believe it.
Within two years of the election, in June 1985, interest rates were back at 12 per cent. and inflation had doubled to 7 per cent. Once again, the pattern was emerging of increases in rates and water charges—within the Government's purview—and those increases were well above the rate of inflation. Again, by the time of the election in 1987, interest rates were down again to 9 per cent. and inflation was at 4·2 per cent. The Government were making claims. The Prime Minister himself wrote in the election campaign that year in the Huntingdon Post:
"Inflation has gone. The economy is sound. Unemployment is falling."
People voted on that basis.
In October 1987, after the stock market crash, the Government took the step of cutting interest rates, which they now claim is almost their sole mistake in all these years. In the 1988 Budget, they claimed an economic miracle and cut taxes afresh to their present level. Flushed with money and rhetoric, companies and individuals went on a credit spree and the Government went on feeding inflation.
The Government went on cutting money for public sector housing and forcing councils to increase rents. They went on cutting transport subsidies and forcing up fares. They insisted on price increases for gas, which were followed by increases for water and electricity to fatten those industries for privatisation. They also made hikes in prescription and other charges, and they pushed up interest rates to 15 per cent. and kept them there for a year. With that, they pushed up mortgages, mortgage debt and

989
repossessions. They pushed up unemployment and business failures, yet still they went on with inflationary own goals.
Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot resist finding out whether the hon. Gentleman really has thought of a new point. I give way.
Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the hon. Lady for her graciousness in giving way. As the hon. Lady is clearly wedded to the exchange rate mechanism, will she confirm that a future Labour Government, if such a Government should come to power, would raise interest rates to defend sterling within the ERM if necessary? Yes or no?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we have long expressed the view that, if the exchange rate is properly managed, there is no need to take that step—[Interruption.] Let the hon. Gentleman put that question to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary if he chooses.
Mr. Mellor: Is the hon. Lady aware that her answer is one of the most extraordinary cop-outs? She would not be able to hold office in the Treasury for 10 seconds unless she was prepared to improve on that.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have managed it.
The Government went on inflicting inflationary own goals.
Mr. Mellor: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No. Once is enough on that subject.
I have a cutting from the Financial Times of 12 May 1990 which makes the point admirably. The article says:
"Hardly ever, outside wartime, can a government have done so much to push up the inflation rate in a single month as this administration has achieved in the April calculation of the General Index of Retail Prices."
The Government went on inflicting inflationary own goals and within two years of the 1987 general election interest rates were back at 15 per cent., inflation had doubled again to 8·3 per cent. on its way to its 10·9 per cent. peak and, once again, we were heading for recession with the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, saying only that if it was not hurting, it was not working.
In the Financial Times article an additional comment was made. Drawing on the inflationary own goals that the Government had inflicted in a short time, the writer points out that that contrasts oddly with the Budget speech by the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, in March when he set out the Government's economic policy objectives. The article says that the first objective
"is to bring inflation down again."
The commentator then writes:
"But perhaps that aim should have been more explicitly stated: to reduce inflation just before the next General Election."
This is a Jekyll and Hyde approach to inflation control. With the advent of an election and in the pre-election period, Dr. Jekyll takes over and everyone is very good about inflation. Once an election is safely over, within two years, Mr. Hyde is letting rip and we see the effects on inflation and on interest rates.
Conservative Members dislike that comparison so much because, sure enough, as today we approach yet another general election, interest rates are at 10·5 per cent.
990
and we are waiting, yet again, for the Chancellor to decide when it will be politically beneficial to the Conservative party, rather than when it will be most advantageous to the economy, to cut them—and inflation is around 4 per cent. again. On 16 February, The Sunday Times said:
"Any fool can reduce inflation if he is prepared to lay the economy flat on its back."
Of course, we know the fools who have.
Growth was down in 1991 by 2·5 per cent., the worst fall in a calendar year since the great depression of the 1930s. Unemployment is at 2·6 million and on its way, most people forecast, to 3 million.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No. I know that hon. Members do not want this on the record, but I am determined to put it there.
Three thousand jobs have been lost every day since the Prime Minister got his new job; 75,500 homes were repossessed last year, 72 per cent. up on the year before; perhaps a million people are said by the building societies to be in serious mortgage debt, that is, up to two months in arrears; and 47,800 businesses went bankrupt in 1990, the highest on record and a 65 per cent. increase on the year before. Manufacturing investment has fallen by 14 per cent. and is predicted by the CBI to fall again this year by perhaps 6 per cent. in this quarter. Today's Chancellor calls all that a price well worth paying to suppress inflation, without even a syllable of apology for the incompetence and mismanagement that pushed it up.
We believe that it is vital to keep inflation low. That is one of the reasons why we urged the Government to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. But while low inflation may be a necessary condition for economic success, it is by no means sufficient. Too much money chasing too few goods is the classic definition of inflation. The Government have relied solely on one side of that equation—the supply of money. They have ignored the supply of goods and services, leaving it all to the market. If we allow our productive capacity to be further reduced—and as people begin again to want to purchase goods and services—inflation is bound to rise again. Even in recession we have inflationary bottlenecks and skill shortages. What is the Government's response? It is to go on cutting Government support for training, for industry and for the regions and to ignore falling levels of investment.
Professor Brian Reading pointed out some time ago in his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee that
"reducing demand through lower investment cuts inflation in the short run but increases inflation in the long run."
Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady has not yet made clear what a Labour Government's response would be if the circumstances that she has described were to take place. She has cast doubt on whether such a Government would even be prepared to take the steps necessary to defend Britain's position in the exchange rate mechanism. What would a Labour Government do if they were confronted with inflation rising at a time of recovery?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is being ridiculous. He knows perfectly well that we have made it clear on the record and consistently that we would maintain the exchange rate. He aspires to be considered a senior

991
commentator on Treasury matters. He should know better than to cast doubt on the wish of any prospective Government to maintain the exchange rate.
Mr. Mellor: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: Again?
Mr. Mellor: I shall make the same point that I made earlier to the hon. Lady. The way in which currency levels are managed is by interest rates. That is the way it is done throughout the ERM. I am astonished that the hon. Lady is not prepared to give the commitment that the Chancellor has always given—one cannot have a commitment to the ERM unless one does.
Mrs. Beckett: We have given a commitment that we will maintain the exchange rate. We have given it consistently and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that perfectly well.
We must maintain low inflation and stable conditions so that business can plan ahead, address the supply side failures and, above all, avoid inflationary own goals. What about the Government's own policy? What are they going to do? What can we learn from the motion? Not very much, actually. In the motion is the claim that Labour will inevitably increase inflation. The Government have doubled it three times in 13 years. In the motion is the claim that Labour will push up interest rates. Interest rates and mortgage rates have been pushed up between elections in each of the Government's terms of office. Interest rates under them have averaged 12·4 per cent. as opposed to 10·7 per cent. under the previous Labour Government, and mortgage rates have reached the highest levels on record.
In the motion the Government claim that Labour will increase unemployment. Unemployment is double the rate that we left—and climbing—even though the Government have changed the way it is counted 30 times. They claim that our policies to promote investment, research and development, and on inflation and education and to improve the transport infrastructure, to create the wealth to enable us better to fund our public services will not work here when they are working in every successful economy in the world. They claim that we alone cannot make what is best practice in Europe common practice here.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall not give way. I am almost at the end of my speech.
What is the vision that the Conservative party offers to the people of Britain in the 1990s? "Look at our record over 13 years," they say. "Re-elect us," they say, "and we will do it all again." They say, "We will shove up interest rates again and double inflation again." To show that they really mean it, we have that felicitous statement from the Chancellor, "If we'd known how it would turn out, we wouldn't have done anything different." There could not be a better statement of their arrogance. Let it be their epitaph.
5.6 pm
Sir Ian Stewart: The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will live to regret the extraordinary performance that she has delivered to the House this afternoon. Instead of the clear commitment which she should give to the methods necessary to maintain sterling in the exchange rate mechanism, if there were a Labour Government, we have been answered by evasion and prevarication. When she was asked, by not only my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury but my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), whether a Labour Government would defend sterling within the mechanism by the use of interest rates, she found every possible means of avoiding an answer. Unfortunately, that is not a casual lapse.
The Labour party's approach to inflation has been careful to avoid making any of the commitments necessary to justify its claim that it would maintain sterling within the permitted bands. That is one of the main reasons why all commentators and serious analysts who looked at the figures, policies, proposals and statements of the Labour party have concluded that inflation would be higher under a Labour Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary quoted many commentators this afternoon. They may differ in the amount by which they think that inflation would increase or the amount by which they think interest rates would have to rise in order to gain control of inflation, but none of them disagrees with the basic proposition that inflation would be higher under a Labour Government. It is not difficult to see the reasons why.
It is the stated policy of the Labour party to increase public expenditure by an enormous amount, not just by £5 billion, £10 billion or £20 billion but by between £30 billion and £40 billion. I lose count because Labour Members frequently change their commitment and priorities, but the latest estimates are approaching £40 billion in annual terms. Of course, it is not possible for a party which is committed to those spending priorities to convince the markets or independent commentators and analysts that its approach to economic management and monetary policy is sound unless it is prepared to explain how it would finance it. On top of making public expenditure commitments, Labour Members have encouraged almost every inflationary wage claim that has been made by public sector employees; yet they expect to be able to hold down wage claims in the public sector—with all the consequences that such claims have on public expenditure —as soon as they come into office. It simply is not a credible approach.
Above all, the Labour party has not understood the practical implications of its extraordinary policy for a minimum wage. It does not seem to understand that a minimum wage would not only squeeze out jobs at the lower end of the scale and impose extra costs on employers who retain labour at higher wages but have a knock-on effect on differentials all the way up the scale.
If a person who earns 10 per cent. less than someone else receives a 10 per cent. wage increase under the minimum wage provisions, does the Labour party believe that other workers who previously had a 10 per cent. differential would calmly accept that without putting in a claim to maintain their differential? All economic analysis

993
of the minimum wage proposal has concluded that a minimum wage would achieve an astounding double: it would put up inflation and unemployment simultaneously.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why a high wage economy such as that of West Germany, as it was then, was so successful, had such low inflation and had proper manufacturing jobs instead of some of the cheap-jack jobs that we have here at present?
Sir Ian Stewart: I can give two answers to the hon. Gentleman. The first is that in Germany a responsible financial and monetary policy has been pursued for many years. That is something which the Labour party seems unable to recognise as necessary for sound economic management. Secondly, we are not talking about the continuation of a wage system, with or without minimum wages; we are talking about the effects of introducing a minimum wage system. The effect would be not only to put up the cost to employers in respect of existing employees and deny the labour market to some of those who in current circumstances are able to enter it but to create an upward pressure on the wages of many people who earn wages slightly above those affected by the minimum wage proposals. That is difficult to quantify exactly, but it is unavoidable that the consequence of a minimum wage would be an increase in wage costs which would work a long way up the scale.
The Labour party has not begun to understand the implications of its proposal. It is not surprising, therefore, that it does not realise why its policies are so incompatible with the commitment to which it says that it adheres—keeping sterling within the exchange rate mechanism. If ever there were any credibility in the Labour party's protestations on that subject, it was blown apart this afternoon by the extraordinarily evasive answers given by the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I am sorry that she felt it beyond her to respond to a Conservative Member, but she might at least have responded to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed when he asked, perfectly reasonably, how she could justify her party's commitment to the ERM if she was not prepared to will the means as well as the ends.
Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend is setting out some of the grave disadvantages of a Labour Government, if elected. But is not the immediate price that we would have to pay the fact that, fairly or unfairly, reasonably or unreasonably, the financial markets would not trust a Labour Government, as they do not now? In any circumstances, there would have to be a higher rate of interest under a Labour Government than under a Conservative Government. What effect would that have on the recovery? What effect would it have on those people who are already having difficulty paying their mortgage? Would not it have a devastating effect within two weeks, six weeks or two months of the election of a Labour Government?
Sir Ian Stewart: The impact would be both early and severe, as my hon. Friend rightly points out. That is another reason why I suspect that the Labour party's commitment to maintaining membership of the ERM, with sterling at the present level, is not sincere.
I suggest that if the Labour party wants to be taken seriously, it must look again at its contradictory policies.
994
It says that it has massive public expenditure priorities. It intends to introduce a minimum wage and take steps which would undoubtedly put upward pressure on inflation. At the same time it constantly avoids admitting that it would take any other steps necessary to deal with inflation or, indeed, to protect the exchange rate of sterling.
I suggest that the Labour party does one of two things: either it should scale down its public spending commitments to a credible level and drop its proposal for a minimum wage or it should admit that it is not committed to the ERM. So long as it continues to try to have it both ways, it will not be believed on either of those commitments. The reason why the Labour party is not believed on its commitment to the ERM is simply that the rest of its economic policies are clearly incompatible with that commitment. So it should clear up the mess.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Derby, South let out of the bag a kitten or a cat this afternoon, but I am afraid that in her carefully evasive replies she showed that the Labour party has no underlying commitment to maintain the ERM parities for sterling.
I came here this afternoon hoping that the hon. Member for Derby, South would give us a more coherent exposition of the Labour party's economic policies. As inflation was the subject of the debate, I hoped that she would speak about the Labour party's approach to inflation and how it would control it and continue to bear down on it. I suppose that I was over-optimistic. Of course, we have been disappointed again. But one or two chinks of light have been seen on the Labour party's real approach to economic policy. Many people have pointed out that there is a yawning gap at the centre of the Labour party's economic policies because it has not reconciled its expenditure commitments with either its plans for taxation or its approach to borrowing and interest rates.
I suspect that at the heart of the Labour party's policy is the policy that dare not speak its name—printing money. That is the only way out that the Labour party has left.
Mr. Radice: I am interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, but will he comment on the fact that the public sector borrowing requirement is likely to be well over £20 billion under a Government who are apparently committed to balancing the budget?
Sir Ian Stewart: I will do so but only briefly because it is not the subject of my speech. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman complain when the public sector debt repayment figure was large. That is something which his party never achieved. Of course, at certain points in the economic cycle there will be a surplus and at others a deficit. I believe that an acceptable deficit at this point in the economic cycle is the correct policy. I hope that my right hon. Friends will follow that. We have never raised the public sector borrowing requirement to anything like the percentage of gross domestic product to which the Labour party raised it when it was in office.
The Labour party says that it will not increase taxes other than those to which it has already committed itself. It says that it will make public expenditure increases within the amount that it can afford. The figures do not add up. The Labour party must accept that, unless it is prepared to explain how its policies will be implemented, its commitments and expressions of adherence to the

995
exchange rate discipline of the ERM will not be believed. Unless it is prepared to sort that out before or during the election, it will not be able to argue that it has a coherent or responsible policy for economic management and, therefore, that it is credible and could be trusted with the government of Britain.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Ian Stewart: Yes, but I am under pressure of time.
Mr. Randall: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. His speech so far has been based on the completely false assumption that the Labour party will go ahead with a spending programme based on a Tory propaganda figure—£35 billion, £50 billion or whatever. That is an utterly false assumption, so the validity of everything that he is saying is out of court. I wish that the Conservative party would stop peddling its propaganda in that way because it results in worthless debating time.
Sir Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is a decent chap, and I do not want to pin the blame on him, but if he wants his party to be taken seriously he has to persuade the leadership of the Labour party to stop its spokesmen saying in every debate and at meetings throughout the country on health, education, transport and everything else that they have massive spending priorities for an incoming Labour Government. If the Labour party is prepared to scrap all that, to rip it out of its policy documents, and not to mention it in manifestos, Labour would attract greater credibility. Until it does so, one can only take the Labour party at face value.
If Labour Members spell things out in such detail and if their spokesmen go to such great lengths to explain what they want to do, it is not surprising that people will believe them. Labour has undermined its credibility by having internally inconsistent policy objectives, and I am trying to point that out. I am trying to be helpful to Labour because its policies would be more credible if the party faced up to that central problem.
I have been too generous in giving way to comply with the request of the Chair that we should not speak at great length. As we approach the Budget, the question is: would it be inflationary to have some reduction in taxation? My view is that it would not. At this stage of the economic cycle it is clear that the savings ratio is high. Consumers, for many reasons—not excluding the fact that they live in fear of the Labour party's tax policies—are reluctant to commit themselves to expenditure of the kind that would assist in bringing about further economic recovery.
If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor concludes that it would be possible to reduce personal taxation in this Budget, he would be right to do so on economic grounds. That is the right economic response to the present position.
Mr. Radice: It is deathbed Keynesianism.
Sir Ian Stewart: One problem with the policies advocated by Lord Keynes was that they were always applied in one part of a cycle but not in the other part. Lord Keynes never said that one had to stimulate the economy with extra borrowing and public expenditure not
996
only when it needed to be given a stimulus but also once it was growing at a satisfactory rate. That is why the so-called Keynesian approach to economics fell down.
The correct time for adjustments in personal taxation is not only when they can be afforded because of the fiscal position but when it is the right moment in the economic cycle. I can only recommend reductions in personal taxation if they are accompanied by a commitment to keep firm control on public expenditure as the economy recovers, so that the public sector borrowing requirement reduces as the recovery takes place. Without such a commitment I would not make that recommendation, but with it I have no doubt that it would assist in the approach to consumer confidence which is a necessary part of the platform for economic recovery that the Government are putting in place.
In those circumstances, I regret that, in an economic debate, the Labour party has once again failed to tackle any of the central issues in a way that would inspire confidence in its proposals and lead to economic recovery. Labour has dodged the issue of how it would tackle inflation and has added to the confusion about its monetary and exchange rate policy. This afternoon the Labour party has demonstrated that it is even more unfit to come into government than I thought before the debate and the debate will certainly have helped to ensure that it does not.
5.24 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: I hope that the first speaker from the Government Front Bench will be kind enough to return to the House. In years gone by, we had an old custom that the main speakers in a debate used to stay to listen to replies to their questions, but perhaps that has changed. Possibly the Chief Secretary will return.
I shall try to discover why this debate has taken place. It is certainly something of a mystery. However, it would be rude of me if I did not also comment on the speech of the right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Sir. I. Stewart). I understand that he has been a great defender of the Government's monetarist policies in the past decade. Five or 10 years ago, during debates on this subject, Government spokesmen made great speeches—I dare say that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, or whatever he calls himself, who has just left us, made many speeches on the same topic—but how different was their allegiance and the economic policies which they followed.
We are witnessing the biggest somersault of the monetarists in history. The next Budget will be produced on full-blooded Keynesian lines, although it is rough on Keynes that his name should be used in such disreputable circumstances. Even so, they are using good Keynesian arguments now. Those of us who were brought up on Keynes think that the application of his doctrines should be more carefully considered, and I hope that the Government will do that before they proceed along those lines.
I heard every word in the speech of the right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North. He said that he was convinced by the Government's case, but that he was not at all convinced by the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) put so well. Well, he must be a hopeless case. He is beyond all recovery.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Foot: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment if he is so anxious to interrupt.
I should have thought that any normal person listening to the two speeches by the Chief Secretary and the right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North would have been insulted. I thought that the House was insulted by the speech from the Treasury Bench but, as is the custom, the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South was different. Never in the history of Oppositions has there been such a settled, deliberate and determined case—she presented the figures to the nation so that people could balance the different sides of the equation. This Opposition and my hon. Friend have done that more skilfully than any other Opposition. She has put the case on behalf of the entire official Opposition. That is one of the reasons why the Labour party will win the next election.
Mr. Marlow: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy. He says that he is impressed by the case put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). Could he tell what that case was, because I do not think that any of us heard her put a case? Could he tell us how she would maintain the parity of sterling within the ERM? What would she do with interest rates in those circumstances—would she use them?
Mr. Foot: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads the case put by my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "He cannot."] If he could not hear her, I hope that his eyes will be able to rectify the position and that he will study exactly what she said. Anyone comparing the two cases put by the Front Benches could see the difference, and could see that my hon. Friend's was a first-class case.
I have discovered the reason for the Chief Secretary's difficulties. I may be the only Member of Parliament who has discovered the origin of this debate. The secret was out in a newspaper report which I read the other day. It said that the Prime Minister had set up a special committee to advise him on election tactics. The names in the report made an interesting list. Such an auspicious committee should have a fitting name; perhaps it could be called the "flagship committee", because that has a good auld lang syne ring about it. All its members are strong supporters of the poll tax, and no doubt that is one of the qualifications for membership.
The flagship committee has serious problems to solve. For example, what will be done with the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) during the election? Is there still a helicopter to take her to Southend without running the risk of a forced landing in Old Bexley and Sidcup on the way back? For such an old-fashioned debate the chief cook and bottle washer of the Conservative party, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), should be here. We all remember his wonderful speech in defence of the poll tax when the right hon. Member for Finchley sat beside him. He spoke for one and a quarter hours without a single note, without hesitation and without a single principle. No doubt he is fully qualified to sit on the flagship committee.
Some people used to think that the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who represents a Nottinghamshire constituency, was not sufficiently ardent in his Thatcherism. He goes to committee meetings waving his emblem. No doubt he waves his wallet and they know that he is a proper Thatcherite at heart.
998
It is customary for Chancellors of the Exchequer to sit on such committees, and apparently the present Chancellor has been invited. However, the Prime Minister could have been forgiven for thinking that there was a case for saying that it would not be too heavy a cost to bear if the Chancellor were not on the committee. It would be a price worth paying, shall we say? Perhaps the Prime Minister considered it on those counts. The people of the committee are a remarkable lot.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury was not even invited. He was sent along here but, having listened to his speech, I wish that the exchange had been the other way round. The Secretary of State for the Environment spoke a few days ago, and I thought that we would get him again today. He was in tremendous form; I thought that at any moment he would make off again with the Mace. Oliver Cromwell did that only once but I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was about to do it for the second time.
I do not hold the Mace episode against the right hon. Gentleman, and I have often thought that it was the best thing he ever did. It was certainly the most dangerous military action in which he was engaged after he was in the Ministry of Defence. Some of us recall the right hon. Gentleman coming to the House with the mud and blood of battle on his tunic from Greenham Common. He thought that he had managed a wonderful victory and that that should have made him Prime Minister. It is certainly a better reason than the others that he seems to be advancing.
If the flagship committee is not as successful as it should be, I hope that some others will be invited to help. We do not see him often in his place, but what about the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)? He seems to be at a loose end at the moment. He could be invited to come along, and I am sure that he would not charge anything, although he might insist on one of Lord Young's sweeteners being arranged after the election. Perhaps that bargain has already been sealed. If the right hon. Member for Devonport appears on a Conservative platform, or even the Prime Minister's platform, during the election campaign, we can conclude that such a bargain has been made, and we shall all watch to see whether it will be kept.
The Prime Minister himself is on the flagship committee. At the weekend, he spoke feelingly about his passion for maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom. Not all of us have been able to see whether he has a heart, but when he went to Scotland he expressed his passionate support for maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom. Was his passion still burning, or had it burnt out after discussions in previous flagship committees about whether the poll tax should be applied to Scotland?
It would have been an apposite moment to bring up the matter if someone had said, "Hold on a moment. Do you think that it is a good thing for the unity of the United Kingdom to go ahead with this horrific tax and impose it on the Scots even before it has been worked out for England?" If the Prime Minister is such an eager supporter of the unity of the United Kingdom, it might have occurred to him three or four years ago when the matter was being discussed by the flagship committee of those times.
Another of the Chief Secretary's qualifications for being on the committee is that he has been a strong supporter of the poll tax and has voted for every poll tax measure that has been guillotined. I do not say that he was

999
one of its inventors, although he would have claimed he was if he had thought that it would do him any good at the time. He disowned those matters easily thereafter.
The whole exhibition of the flagship committee is due chiefly to the poll tax, but it is also connected with all the Government's other misdemeanours, disasters and economic catastrophes. It has been one of the most disgraceful episodes of our political history. It is not easy to find words to describe it properly. The best words to describe the conduct of the flagship committees and their past, present and attempted future were written by Alexander Pope:
"As hags hold sabbaths, less from joy than spite, So these their merry, miserable night… Still round and round the ghosts of beauty glide, And haunt the places where their honour died."
That is a fitting epitaph for the Government.
We have seen, especially during the past few years but even before that, the prostitution of Parliament to serve the narrow interest of the Conservative party. That has happened before in our history, and when prostitution has taken place on that scale, as it did in the 1930s, the threat to our country has been severe. I do not say that the present Administration have the same evil quality as the Conservative Government of the 1930s, but they are the nearest rival in our history, and we should take account of that.
I say that not only because of the Government's antics and the way that they have pressed through legislation, or because of their performance in this debate, but because of their performance over the whole poll tax Parliament. We are approaching the end of it, and as soon as the flagship committee has the courage to go to the country, the people will pronounce on this perverted, prostituted Parliament the judgment that they pronounced in 1945. The liberation that the British people sought then they will seek again, and nothing will stop them achieving it.
5.40 pm
Sir Gerrard Neale: It is always a pleasure to be in the Chamber to listen to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). His best speeches have a number of consistent points—they show great parliamentary debating skill and great humour, but his very best ones rarely deal with the point of the debate. It was interesting to note that, even in response to an intervention, he found it impossible to clarify the Opposition's stance on the exchange rate mechanism.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary and the Treasury team have every cause to be congratulated on their achievements on the rate of inflation. It is no surprise to me—although it appears to be one to Labour Members —that we are having a debate on inflation. When right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took office, he made it plain that low inflation was a fundamental part of his policy. He was joined in that by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made it similarly plain.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) in his place and no doubt hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. We view the position with a clear perspective—that high inflation is bad news for the economy of the west country in general and of Cornwall in particular. I am surprised that the
1000
Opposition do not appear to have grasped the fundamental importance of inflation to our economy. Several industries in Cornwall have been hit by high inflation. Tourism suffers dramatically if prices rise quickly; our farming industry is hit heavily if food prices rise quickly; and our economy depends on competitive pricing and firm monetary policies. Without them, we would have fearfully high levels of unemployment and transport costs, which would make it impossible for us to get our products and services into the economy of the remainder of the United Kingdom.
I want to make a few comments on behalf of small business. Some 85 per cent. of businesses in Britain employ fewer than six people, and 95 per cent. fewer than 20. They are fearful of what would happen if the Labour party took office—although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Sir I. Stewart) that that is very much less likely after the speeches that we have heard today from Labour Members. Small business men have a fear of high interest rates. Labour Mambers may chuckle, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary let them off lightly today. He quoted a number of reports from different economic institutions on the calculations of any increase in interest rates. He referred to the Nomura report, but what he did not say—and what the Opposition should remind themselves of—is that the report envisages that, with the advent of a Labour Government, interest rates could rise not by 2 per cent., but by 21 per cent. If we need proof of where that has happened before, we need look only at what happened when a socialist President was elected in France and short-term rates rose to 31 per cent.
I know that it is unpalatable, but Labour Members must accept that unless they are much clearer about their economic policy, especially in relation to the exchange rate mechanism, on the night of the election the institutions handling funds will be ready to remove money from this country at the very moment that they think there is any threat of a Labour Government. It is not something that any of us can do anything about. Those people handle funds on behalf of investors. If they think that there is a risk of a Labour Government, with the sort of wishy-washy approach that they would take, the institutions will move money out of this country at such a rate that the rate of inflation will have to rocket if the Labour party is to hold firm to the ERM. If any Labour Member disbelieves me, he should look at the Nomura report.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North referred to the minimum wage. I say again to Labour Members that if they came to my constituency, which is heavily dominated by small businesses—as many rural constituencies are—they would appreciate that those employed in such businesses on low wages help to keep the books and to collect the money. There is little money in many of those businesses because they are small. Everybody is a Man Friday of some description or another. They know the facts of life for their businesses.
Of course, everybody would like to have more money per week. The bosses of those small businesses would like to have more money per week. There is hardly anyone in this country who would not like to have more money per week. However, the people in those small businesses know that the money simply is not there. If a minimum wage were imposed, such businesses would disappear. To

1001
survive, many of them need the same number of people that they have helping them; they could not get by with fewer people. If the basic wage is pushed up, those businesses would become unviable.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North pointed out the way in which a minimum wage could affect differentials. In the west country, like any other area, those in small businesses—which are trading in considerable difficulty, not only because of the market place but because of their size—understand that the minimum wage would kill many jobs as quickly as a snap of the fingers.
Another matter relating to small business is especially important and I have spoken to Treasury Ministers about it. The Government have been extremely supportive of small companies by helping them to expand and by allowing them to keep more in their pockets by lowering the level of taxation.
Mr. Enright: And by helping them to go bankrupt.
Sir Gerrard Neale: The hon. Gentleman should think about how many small businesses there are now compared with 1979. He should remember that there are now relatively more people in employment in this country than all other Europan countries bar one.
The Government deserve congratulation for supporting small companies. Undistributed profits are now taxed at a rate of only 25 per cent. up to a limit of £250,000, and beyond that there is a graded scale up to 37 per cent. That has enormously helped small companies. There remains an inconsistency, however, in respect of unincorporated firms. Once the profit level reaches £23,700, if there is a single proprietor—and whether or not the profit is drawn—the tax level rises from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. If there are two partners and the profit level is double that I mentioned, the same situation arises.
That disadvantage was clearly identified by the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, and it could be overcome if undistributed profits made by small unincorporated firms were taxed on the same basis as that applying to incorporated companies. Over a 12-month period, an unincorporated firm would gain enormously, as incorporated businesses do. The money saved could be invested in new equipment, such as computers, or creating new jobs.
I dispute the argument that such an arrangement would be impracticable because there is no set accounting procedure for small, unincorporated businesses. Every such firm keeps accounts, not least for the purposes of calculating value added tax. The Inland Revenue informs me that there are 2·8 million unincorporated businesses, and it estimates that 470,000 of them pay tax at the 40 per cent. rate.
The Government have proved conclusively how welcome have been their successful actions in respect of incorporated businesses, and I ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to consider the case of the small unincorporated business sector in future. The Government's policies have secured the great achievement of an inflation rate currently of only 4·1 per cent., and they show every sign of reducing it further.
The Government made it perfectly plain that the process would be extremely painful for many sectors of business, but they clearly explained their policies and their effects. Those policies are working, and it is evident to me
1002
and to all my hon. and right hon. Friends that were the country to suffer the misfortune of Labour being elected to power, a Labour Government would never show anything close to the determination displayed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary and the other members of the Treasury team in defending the value of sterling and this country against the high inflation rates that we saw under previous Labour Governments.
5.52 pm
Mr. A. N. Beith: In making his useful points about small businesses, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale) did not refer also to the penal level of uniform business rate that small firms suffer, involving the projection by the Government of the highest rates of inflation into small business costs for the following year—using the maximum permitted level—instead of exercising the discretion that the Government had to set the business rate at a significantly lower level. That decision has affected businesses of all sizes, and small firms in particular.
Inflation is bad. I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members have shared my experience of being told by constituents, and by pensioners in particular, every time that the television news announces a fall in inflation, "I don't understand it. They say that inflation is coming down, but prices are rising in the shops that I use."
Any inflation means rising prices, so unless there is zero inflation, we are talking about something that damages the economy in a number of ways. Inflation makes pricing impossible, disguises relative prices, and enables some price rises to be concealed in the general level of increases —and thereby prohibits rational economic decisions being made. Inflation redistributes wealth from the prudent to the profligate. It penalises saving and rewards borrowing.
Inflation makes property a more attractive investment than production, and allows Governments to escape responsibility for their actions. It is not without significance that the two groups that tend to like inflation are those who borrow extremely heavily and see the cost of their debt falling, and Governments who behave imprudently and want to rescue themselves from their actions by printing more money.
Inflation is at the root of all short-termism, and is the enemy of sensible, long-term decisions. One cannot safely predict what to do about business investment and pricing if one does not know what will happen to the future value of the country's currency.
Even modest levels of inflation can be highly significant. Inflation of only 5 per cent. will bring a doubling of prices in 14 years. We should not deceive ourselves that, because inflation is currently running at 4 per cent. to 5 per cent., the problem is solved. The problem remains, and much more must be done.
The Government obviously tabled today's motion to emphasise that Labour does not appear to have any policies for dealing with inflation. However, the debate has the added effect of emphasising that the Government also are short of policies. Let us start, however, with Labour.
Even our old friend credit control has disappeared from Labour's amendment. It must have accepted at long last that credit control is not a feasible or practicable way of containing inflation, and is not something that could reasonably be introduced into the economy. Labour no longer mentions that subject.

1003
I did not expect the debate to end with even more doubt being cast on Labour's already weak position on inflation —but it was, by the unwillingness of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to answer with a straight yes the question "Would you be prepared to see interest rates increase if that was necessary to defend sterling's position in the exchange rate mechanism?" There were shades of Labour's old attitude to nuclear weapons—"It may be necessary to have them, but we announce now that in no circumstances will we ever use them."
There is no point in being a member of the ERM and having interest rates that, although uncomfortable in their effects, are not as drastic as nuclear weapons if one is not prepared to say that one is prepared to use them.
I accept that the hon. Member for Derby, South believes in Britain keeping its position in the ERM, but her very hesitation is a dangerous signal.
Mr. Enright: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the only way to maintain parity in the exchange rate mechanism is by use of interest rates? That is an interesting economic theory.
Mr. Beith: That is a method which Governments use, and which the present Government have been compelled to employ. Intervention by use of reserves is one such mechanism that must be used in those circumstances. General economic management is another. At the end of the day, however, if one is not prepared to use the interest rate weapon, one might as well not be in the ERM.
Mr. Enright: The hon. Gentleman did not—
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has a loud voice, but that does not alter the fact that his argument is weak. The hon. Member for Derby, South could have given a simple and straightforward answer, but she did not. It was unwise of her to take that stance.
The Government's problem is that they have two anti-inflation policies. One is membership of the ERM. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has answered questions from me to the effect that he would use interest rates if necessary to maintain this country's position. The other is recession—which is, by the Government's own indications, a temporary mechanism. They do not want recession to continue, but it looks likely to remain for some time. When it ends and recovery arrives, prices will no longer remain as low as they have been recently.
It is incontrovertible that over the Christmas and new year period prices of household goods were lowered, and that had a beneficial effect on the retail prices index. If recessionary conditions change, as we all hope they will, the Government will need other means of controlling inflation, yet they still show no sign of being willing to address that question.
Nor can the Government claim an unblemished record. Britain has one of the worst records for inflation. Since 1950, prices in Britain increased faster than in the United States, Germany, France, Japan, or Canada. Italy apart, Britain has the worst inflation record of all the G7 countries.
The British people have seen the value of their pound reduced under successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour. Since 1950, the pound's value has fallen consistently: a 1950 pound is worth only 7p
1004
today, whereas today's German mark and American dollar are worth 32 per cent. and 19 per cent. of their respective 1950 values.
If that record is ever to improve, Britain must adopt a long-term policy to deal with inflation. Our advocacy of an independent central bank, committed to price stability, is the only such policy that is on offer to the British people. I have rarely heard a more compelling demonstration of the case for an independent central bank than that provided by the evasiveness shown today by hon. Member for Derby, South. I should be much happier if I knew that the central bank would decide interest rate policy on the basis of price stability and maintaining sterling's position, and that future Ministers in any party would have nothing to do with that decision—that they would get on with the job of managing fiscal policy and providing the infrastructure that the economy requires.
If control of interest rates were taken out of the hands of politicians and given to an independent central bank, the fight against inflation would be continued all the time, and the problem of Governments going soft on inflation —particularly in the run-up to general elections—would be avoided. Greater stability of prices, interest rates and economic growth would result. Recent studies have concluded that countries with independent central banks typically enjoy lower inflation, irrespective of their political make-up and budgetary policies; and there is no cost in terms of lower growth.
Mr. Ian Taylor: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument about price stability. Can he tell us what would be his party's policy at this juncture? It appears that he has some plans to raise taxes, but that, surely, would be an irresponsible policy for a country that is moving out of a recession. Will he clarify his party's fiscal policy?
Mr. Beith: It is certainly not irresponsible to invest in the economy now, as we suggest. As was pointed out in a recent report by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, the best time at which to invest in the public infrastructure is a time of recession. Some of the investment will need to be financed by borrowing, but I regard investment as a much more prudent use of borrowing than tax cuts. Tax cuts ought to be achieved by means of growth, which should bring public finances to a point at which we do not need as much revenue, or revenue is buoyant because of the extent of that growth in the economy.
Surely it is much more prudent to use the means at our disposal to invest now. Such tax cuts as we have proposed have been designed either to make real decisions possible on such matters as the use of energy, or to achieve a better distribution between the richest in society and the poorest. We have made specific proposals—different from Labour's proposals—about the tax scale. Our proposals are designed to enable us to increase pensions and child benefit.
Incidentally, that would probably work into the economy faster than tax cuts granted to the better off. On the whole, people with no money to spend will spend more of what they subsequently gain by way of increases in pensions and benefits.
The absence of any coherent alternative suggests that no one can produce a better method of building in a firm anti-inflation policy than central bank independence. Already, the Government are becoming complacent about

1005
their inflation policy. The Prime Minister claimed that he had inflation licked—although prices were still rising at a rate of more than 4 per cent. a year, and although the recent reductions have taken place during the longest recession since the 1930s and could easily be reversed in the event of a recovery. Prices have more than doubled since May 1979; the pound of May 1979 is worth only 41p in 1992.
Labour scarcely mentions inflation in its economic policy documents. I do not think that the party sees inflation as a problem: I do not think that it recognises the corrosive effects of inflation to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. Labour appears to have abandoned the policy of credit controls, for instance.
Having read the motion and the amendment, we find that we are left with the only coherent alternative—an alternative that we shall probably use in the end in any event. The Government have given us to understand that, if we joined the European monetary system and a single currency were introduced, that currency would have to be operated by an independent central bank. The Chancellor has been quite clear about that. He said in the House that, in stage 3, the European central bank
"would have to be free to set interest rates without interference. That is the view of every member state."—[Official Report, 21 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 517.]
Clearly, the Chancellor has accepted that a European single currency could not be run without an independent central bank. Why should we not enjoy that advantage now? Why should we not say, here and now, that the central bank would exercise independent responsibility for monetary policy, having price stability as its objective?
That would be a much better position to adopt for an Opposition party entering an election. It would be helpful if people knew that, during an election campaign and subsequently, a central bank would exercise that independent responsibility. The Government might do the country a service. If they are so worried about the consequences of other parties' coming into office, why do they not build that in now as part of a firm, permanent anti-inflation policy?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): Surely there is a difference between an independent central bank that is running a single currency—I do not think that there is any practical alternative to that—and the Government of the day continuing to be responsible to the House of Commons for monetary policy when running their own currency. I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument about the independent central bank; indeed, some examples, such as the Bundesbank, work extremely well. Does he not agree, however, that some non-independent central banks—such as those in Japan and France—seem to work equally well?
Mr. Beith: Japan's central bank has gradually increased its independence from Government, and that has contributed to Japan's control of inflation. Let us take the example of countries that simply have more independent central banks than we have. The United States Federal Reserve, for instance, is not an independent central bank in the full sense of the term, but it has still been able to produce a better inflation record—even with its high public-sector deficits—than we have managed in this country. Generally, the record seems favourable.
As the Economic Secretary pointed out, there is a difference between running a single currency for Europe
1006
and running our own domestic currency. There is a practical difference: taking instructions from 12 or more Governments would be even worse than taking instructions from one Government. A central bank will be in a much better position if, on this issue, it takes no instructions from Governments. The present Government are denying themselves a permanent contribution to anti-inflation policy by refusing to embody that principle in our system.
There are many other ways in which we should fight inflation. We should fight it by increasing our manufacturing capacity; we should fight it by promoting competition, and by ensuring that we do not have the rigged markets that exist now in some of the privatised utilities, where genuine competition has not been allowed to develop. Competition is crucial to keeping prices down. At the end of the day, however, the only firm and reliable anchor is an independent central bank, and we shall continue to advocate it until, eventually, the country gets it.
6.6 pm
Mr. Dudley Fishburn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who could justly claim—perhaps alone—that when his party was last in power, before Britain came off the gold standard, inflation rates were very much more stable and sensible than they are today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale) said earlier, the remarkable control of inflation that has been exercised over the past 18 months is a real tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who made it clear that that would be his top priority when he got the job. Moreover, it was he who, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, took us into the exchange rate mechanism—a discipline that has done so much to squeeze out inflation from our economy in the long term and, notwithstanding the prevarications of Opposition Front Benchers, will continue to do so.
Interestingly, in those first speeches when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister determined the need to control inflation, he made the point that is so seldom made: inflation is, above all, a social cruelty. It hurts parts of our society that are often overlooked in the great economic debates. It hurts the quiet: those who save, the elderly and others who are often at the greatest disadvantage. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to say that that was one of the main reasons to control inflation.
The previous Prime Minister also believed strongly in the need to control inflation, but she took her eye off the ball. Had she but done what the German Chancellor did so frequently, and looked at the back pages of The Economist every week, she would have seen that the broad gauge of monetary growth in 1987, 1988 and 1989 was running away at a rate that was much greater than the economic growth of the time. Even though economic growth in those years was strong, at about 4 per cent. a year, none the less monetary growth was between three and four times the rate of our real economic growth.
There is no mystery about inflation. If the rate of increase in the amount of money keeps pace with the growth of domestic output, there is no inflation. If, however, the increase in the amount of money runs ahead of the increase in gross domestic output, there is inflation. The likelihood is that we shall have real growth in the

1007
economy of about 2 per cent. in the year ahead. If the money supply grows by about 6 per cent. in the year ahead, then, as sure as eggs is eggs, inflation will be about 4 per cent.
The chance now before us—the success of the past 18 months has led to that chance—is to reach out and grab not stability at 4 per cent. but stability at 0 per cent. inflation: to have a system in this country, as other countries have had so frequently in the past, under which the value of money and the price of a basket of consumer goods do not change from year to year. We shall look ahead, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Sir I. Stewart) so clearly said, to the long term without the short-term uncertainty that creates its own disparities.
I was delighted to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), not least because, as always with him, there was that great historic reach. He went back through Alexander Pope to Oliver Cromwell. If we were to return to a time of 0 per cent. inflation, it would be, on any historic basis, a return to normality. It is broadly true to say that, from the time of the Restoration after Oliver Cromwell until the outbreak of the first world war 250 years later, consumer prices in Britain remained stable. That is not to say that prices in Britain did not change within that general overall basket. Of course they did. For example, there was the dramatic collapse in the price of wheat in the 19th century which, in itself, led to the industrial wealth of that century.
When there is stability within a currency, leading to stability of prices overall, there can of course be great changes in individual parts of the economy. It is interesting to note that throughout the 19th century—the time of greatest industrial wealth and expansion in this country —when things were changing with every passing decade, there was, none the less, complete price stability. From the start of the 19th century to its end there was no change. I recall the famous anecdote of the Duke of Wellington who, in 1933, sold some land that his ancestor had bought on returning home triumphant from the battle of Waterloo. He sold, for exactly the same price sterling, exactly the same amount of land as the first Duke of Wellington had purchased.
The real increase in inflation started when we abandoned the gold standard in the 1930s. Since then, the value of the pound has fallen catastrophically—to about 2·5 per cent. of its value in 1933. However, the chance to reach out and grab true stability-0 per cent. inflation—will take great political courage. In a sense, inflation is like valium. It creates an easy sense of well-being. One can do nothing very much, yet one can feel that things are jogging along nicely.
It is in that drugged state that many savers say that they like inflation. It gives them the illusion of a high rate of return on their investment. House owners may say that they like inflation because it wipes out their debt and seems to give them a capital increase on their main investment. Some companies pretend at times to like inflation because it gives them a seemingly effortless ability to increase turnover and profit. Worst of all, though, Governments occasionally say that they like inflation because it allows them to hand out excessive public spending year after year without having to pay the true cost.
1008
No party likes inflation more than the Labour party. When the Labour party was in power, it was what can only be described as an inflation junky, with prices rising year after year, way beyond 5 per cent. inflation—which gives that easy, if illusory, feeling of well-being—to about 20 per cent. inflation, which led to economic catastrophe.
We now all know—it is not a matter of debate—that the sense of ease that even low inflation gives is wholly illusory. It undermines Britain's wealth year after year. Even 4 or 5 per cent. inflation, which seems to be so attractive, undermines and, in the course of 20 years, almost eradicates the existing wealth of the country—the wealth that has been built up over generations. Even worse than that, it blunts the ability and the zest of those people who are able to create wealth in our society, for the benefit of us all.
There are only two ways in which we shall fail to reach this chance of price stability, of zero inflation. The first is devaluation. One hesitates to say it, but I think that the reply that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed gave this afternoon increases the likelihood that we shall have a sterling devaluation, or that there will be uncertainty over sterling in the years ahead.
Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was the reply that I elicited from the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)?
Mr. Fishburn: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not having made that clear.
The risk of devaluation is one of the ways in which we can be sure that our inflation norm of 0 per cent. cannot be reached. Devaluation would not make this country more competitive. It would make higher interest rates a certainty—a spectre that would cast its shadow for years ahead. It would also mean that once again we would absorb other countries' inflation through higher import costs. Membership of the exchange rate mechanism, to which the Government are so strongly committed, puts the risk of devaluation behind us, so long as the Government remain in power.
As for the second way in which inflation could take off again, an increase in our domestic money supply could come about as a result of excessive Government-induced wage increases in the public sector which have shot ahead of wage increases in the private sector. If we can hold on to the idea that, having reduced inflation to 4 per cent., we can, together with the other countries of Europe, reduce it to the point where there is constant stability, the prize ahead of us will be enormous.
We must not, however, risk becoming number blind. Even if we hold inflation at 4 per cent., we must be aware of the fact that a 6 per cent. pay settlement will be 50 per cent. above the rate of inflation, that a 20 per cent. increase in the community charge will be five times the rate of inflation and that increases in council rents of, say, 16 per cent. will be four times the rate of inflation.
As inflation becomes ever lower, the demand that it makes upon us is that we should not be figure blind and that we should concentrate on the smallest increase in inflation rates. The prize of zero inflation is clear: that we shall have ever lower unit production costs, which will make our exports more competitive. The prize is long-term planning. For the first time, the attraction of shorttermism—the ability to take profit now because of the uncertainties of the future—will be diminished. People will

1009
say to themselves, "I can invest for 10 years in the knowledge that the underlying value of the money that I invest over that decade will not change." Of course, it will increase the well-being of the people because every increase in wages earned in an economy with 0 per cent. inflation is real wealth and not merely an illusion.
Inflation benefits the debtor and penalises the creditor. As society becomes older, as shown in its age profile, so the public will tend to become more a public of savers and less a public of borrowers. They will demand increasingly that we do not allow inflation to rise, as it has done so frequently in the past. Most of all, to keep inflation still and to aim towards the 0 per cent. target will require a political will which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown. For that reason, I believe that the country will show where its support for him lies.
6.20 pm
Mr. Greville Janner: I remind hon. Members that the motion starts by inviting the House, at the Government's behest, to congratulate the Government
"on its"—
that is, the Government's—
"prudent economic policies".
That anyone should invite the Government to congratulate even themselves on their economic policies is the height of breathtaking cheek. It is the ultimate in chutzpah. It is the most monstrous zenith of shamelessness. The Government are inviting the House to congratulate them on their economic policies when those policies have created a totally unnecessary recession, depression and slump which are ravaging the country. That is a matter of not just statistics but of human suffering.
I wish to hold up my constituency, my city of Leicester and my county of Leicestershire, as a mirror, because I know it best. Of course high inflation is bad news, but low inflation is a disaster when it is at the cost of vast unemployment, a massive collapse of businesses, large and small, mortgage misery and repossessions on an unparalleled scale, poll tax chaos and crime leading to social misery and the breakdown of the lives of far too many families.
A year ago, when the position was only starting to get really bad, The Sunday Times said:
"Any fool can reduce inflation when the economy is flat on its back."
Our economy, which the Government say that they have managed prudently, is not just flat on its back; it is prostrate. It is knocked out for the count. It is destroying the lives, security, homes and happiness of millions. Yet the Government say that the House should congratulate them on what they have done.
Jobs do not mean just the right of people to go out to work; they mean the dignity of work, the ability to earn a living and the right not to be in debt. In the east midlands, 49,000 jobs were lost last year, 29,000 of them in manufacturing industries. Manufacturing industry is on its back. It is in the worst mess that it has ever been in.
My dad, who was Member of Parliament for my seat—yes, I have an hereditary seat, of which I am proud—used to say, "Don't worry, my boy, about Leicester. It will be all right, because in Leicester we make what people have to have—hosiery, knitwear and shoes. They cannot go without them. In the last slump in the 1930s, Leicester was fine. Don't worry, my boy. Leicester
1010
is the second most prosperous city in Europe". My poor father would turn in his grave if he knew what was happening today. Hosiery, knitwear and footwear are all dying. The traditional industries of our city are prostrate and jobs are falling away.
Since 1979, when the Government came into power, unemployment in Leicester has risen by 174 per cent. That is the second highest rise in the country. In my constituency, unemployment rose by 37 per cent. in the last year. That is not just a statistic: it means human misery and disaster.
Anyone who doubts that should come to my surgeries to meet the people who come to seek help. In the past, those were often manual workers, people without skills. Such people may have no special skills to sell, but they are just as entitled to jobs as brilliant people emerging from universities and technical colleges.
Recently, three professional people have come to my surgery. One was an accountant who had been employed in a major accountancy firm in the City and who had come back home to Leicester for family reasons; he could not get a job. A second accountant had been told by the local job centre that, because he was under 5 ft, he was too small, and that was why he could not get a job. That was ridiculous.
When we consider how difficult it is for people of average height, with average intelligence, to get jobs, what a terrible time it is for the disabled, the sick, the handicapped and people with learning difficulties who have to compete in the same market. There are no jobs for them. For that we get low inflation. Thank you very much. I prefer higher inflation and jobs for my constituents.
It is not just the unemployed and the ordinary workers, as they are sometimes called, who have a problem. Some of the worst sufferers now are people who have never been unemployed in their lives. For the first six months, they cannot get help from the Government because of the rules. They cannot even get on training schemes, and they do not know how to cope.
I am president of an organisation called the Retired Executives Action Clearing House, REACH. It is a fine, non-political organisation which looks for jobs for people who were retired early, when in their prime. They want to do something constructive even if they are not paid. People are entitled to jobs when they are young, but as I approach middle age I think that jobs for older people are also important. Why should not people have jobs? We are told that it would create higher inflation and that the cost is too high. The cost of low inflation is too high and is ravaging the lives of too many of my constituents.
As to business failures, there was a 79·4 per cent. increase in the east midlands last year. There was a 96·5 per cent. rise in bankruptcies. Do the Government know that? These were honest, decent business people who have gone bust. They could not pay their debts. When they go down, they pull other people down with them. Those innocent people all suffer because the Government, who are inviting us to congratulate them on their economic policy of all things, do not know how to manage a corner shop. It is a disgrace. The east midlands has become the worst region for business failures, and it is the Government's fault. Firms large and small are going out of business unnecessarily. That is the cost of low inflation.
I always thought that people were entitled to homes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) is wearing a daffodil.

1011
"The land, the land, it was God that gave the land, God that gave land to the people."
That was another of my father's ditties. People are entitled to a roof over their heads. What has happened, all in the name of low inflation? House prices have collapsed. That is not all right for those who happen to own houses, especially if the house is a family's entire wealth. If someone wants to sell his house so that he can get on his bicycle and go to look for another job, he is stuck because he cannot sell.
People who have bought their houses, including council houses, cannot pay their mortgages. What happens then, in the name of low inflation? In 1991, 716 possession orders were made in Leicester county court—an increase of 48 per cent. on 1990. People who were entitled to have homes lost them. There are no rented houses because, in the name of low inflation, local authorities are not allowed to build houses. They cannot even use the money they get from those that they have sold. So people have no jobs, no businesses and no homes. That is the price of low inflation, and the Government say that we must congratulate them on their record.
They say that they are the Government of law and order. In the name of low inflation, they do not want high pay or too many policemen, although we have a few more than we used to. In Leicester, the number of police may have increased by 10 per cent., but crime has increased by 187 per cent. since 1979. I asked the Home Secretary
"by what number, and by what percentage, reported (a) criminal offences and (b) crimes of violence have increased in Leicestershire since May 1979."
The Minister said:
"The available information compares the 12 months to June 1979 with the 12 months to June 1991".
They do not want to give us the figures for the next nine months—I do not blame them—because the figures have got much worse.
The answer went on:
"Between these periods, the total of notifiable offences in Leicestershire increased by 52,906".
There was an increase from 29,481 to 82,387.
"crimes of violence increased by 2,245."—[Official Report, 25 February 1992; Vol. 204, c. 421–22.]
There was an increase from 1,823 to 4,068. Although I asked for the percentage, the Government did not provide it, because it does not sound good. It is an increase of 300 per cent. Crime is burgeoning and our social fabric is collapsing. People do not have homes, jobs or businesses, but we are asked to congratulate the Government on their economic policies. What a cheek.
The Government should be slung out, not congratulated. Recession is when other people are out of work, depression is when you yourself are out of work, and recovery is when the Government are out of work.
6.32 pm
Sir David Mitchell: The debate on inflation is particularly well timed just before the Budget. Most people—not all—recognise that inflation is undesirable. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) referred to high inflation as bad news and low inflation as worse. He is not alone in thinking that.
Mr. Janner: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished Member, but he was not listening properly. I said that high inflation is bad news but low inflation is a disaster when it
1012
is at the cost of vast unemployment, massive collapse of businesses, large and small, mortgage misery, repossession of homes, poll tax chaos, crime and breakdown of families. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to repeat that.
Sir David Mitchell: If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not think that a "disaster" is even worse, I am not sure what is. On a number of other occasions during his speech—I noted them—he made it clear that he does not regard a little inflation as particularly undesirable.
Many people recognise that inflation damages savings and pensioners. It has an effect on wage claims and on industrial costs. It damages the ability of industry to be able to compete in world markets, particularly industries that deal with forward orders where they have to estimate their costs. It damages the farming industry where selling prices remain static but costs rise continually.
I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West will be prepared to consider that there is another hidden effect that is more insidious, damaging, debilitating and, ultimately, more serious. Inflation is the first call on the profits of any and every business. For example, a corner shop may have £5,000 worth of stock on its shelves. If inflation is 10 per cent., next year it must have £5,500 worth of stock if it is to have the same number of packets of cereals and tins on the shelves. The profits will have to be used simply to maintain the amount of stock. A small engineering works may have £1 million worth of work in progress. It could be in Leicester, Andover, Basingstoke or wherever. If inflation is 10 per cent., it would need another £100,000 simply to have the same amount of work in progress a year later. Where would that £100,000 come from? It means that money that should be spent on research, development and investment is used simply to keep pace with inflation.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West said that he would prefer inflation to be a bit higher. Damage would be caused by that because our competitors could spend their money on research, development and investment and so become more competitive. In the world of high inflation, that cannot be done. The first call on every penny is used only to keep the business intact.
Inflation has a cumulative effect. Over the past five years cumulative inflation has been just over 35 per cent. That means, with £1 million worth of work in progress, £350,000 has not been spent on research, development and investment. Inflation damages industry's ability to stay fit and competitive.
To be specific, the cumulative figure for inflation over the past five years is 35·6 per cent. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West will recall that the cumulative figure for the last five years of the previous Labour Government was 100·7 per cent. If a business had £1 million worth of work in progress, after five years of a Labour Government it would need £2 million. That would simply finance the work in progress, the purchase of raw materials and so on. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West seems to forget the effect that that has on the ability to invest in modern machinery and equipment.
It is no wonder that British industry was on its back when the Labour Government left office in 1979. The cost is far greater than the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to realise. He said that the cost of low inflation is too high.

1013
It may be insidious and may not appear immediately on the surface, but in the long term, high inflation is the most damaging thing for any country's economy.
I regret that the Opposition have not taken this opportunity to explain how or whether they would tackle inflation. It is clear that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West does not regard it as a high priority. He spelled out what he sees as the damage brought about by trying to get inflation down. In the long run, every business in his constituency, as in mine, is severely undermined by a failure to bring down inflation and to keep it down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, given my interest in small businesses, you will not be surprised to hear that I wish to refer to the contribution that small businesses make in terms of jobs, wealth creation and a broader tax base. As they grow in number, the revenue to the Exchequer grows and its ability to finance the many other things that we all want is stronger. The contribution of small businesses was not always as widely recognised. Those of us who, in the past, have played a role in reminding people of the value and importance of the contribution of small businesses are pleased to see that it is more widely recognised. All businesses, large and small, suffer from the effects of inflation. All incorporated businesses have benefited from the reductions in corporation tax introduced by the Government. That enables business to grow. However, those corporation tax cuts from 45 per cent. to 35 per cent. for large businesses and to 25 per cent. for small businesses do not apply to unincorporated businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale) said that this is a serious aspect of taxation, because while a small incorporated business pays corporation tax at 25 per cent. an unincorporated business pays at 40 per cent. Unincorporated businesses are the seed-corn of our future prosperity—the smallest businesses that have just started that are beginning to move, to be the springboard from which they grow—yet they must pay more tax. It is not beyond the wit of man, the Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget to devise a means by which investment within an unincorporated business is allowed for tax. That would offset the disadvantage that they suffer under existing arrangements.
In the past two years, many small businesses have gone into liquidation, ceased trading or gone bankrupt. Many did so because they could not find the resources to offset the cost of inflation. I understand the complaints of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West because the businesses of my constituents have also gone into liquidation, but how often did they do so because they did not have enough money to finance the orders that they could get?
Mr. Radice: I remind the hon. Gentleman, who has been making an interesting speech, of the small problem for small businesses of very high interest rates. The hon. Gentleman would not be fair to his own case if he did not point that out.
Sir David Mitchell: High interest rates are the price that we must pay to reduce inflation, but once it has been reduced high interest rates will not continue. We have had a series of reductions in interest rates as inflation has come down, and as it lowers further more reductions will be made. I urge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to forget the unincorporated business in his Budget.
1014
The Chancellor has been more successful in squeezing out inflation than he has been given credit for. In January, inflation was recorded at 4·1 per cent., but that figure covers 12 months. Who would choose a map of where he has been to decide where he is now? If one looks at where my right hon. Friend is now and takes the figure for the past three months, one finds that, annualised, the figure is not 4·1 per cent. but only 1·5 per cent. The annualised figure for December to January shows a fall of 0·8 per cent. It is true that in the past 12 months we have had an increase of 4·1 per cent., but the reality is that the figure is now substantially lower. That is an immensely important victory, bought at, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) will agree, a very high price. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that, having paid that price and reduced inflation, we should not take the risk of overheating the economy again.
Finally, I wish to mention an aspect which I see as a uniquely British engine of inflation—house prices. As the economy picks up, there will be a substantial increase in demand—
Mr. Janner: When?
Sir David Mitchell: Hindsight is the only exact science known to man. Foretelling the future is more difficult. Leading economists who advise banks say that later this year the economy will pick up. I have no insider knowledge, except that the experts tell me that that is likely to happen. When it happens, as assuredly it will, one of the signs will be an increase in demand for housing. There is a pent-up demand for housing among young people who, when they obtain better work, will want to buy a house.
But if we do not increase the supply of land with planning consent, that increased demand for housing will send land prices up and, as it does so, it will provide additional collateral for people to borrow against the higher value of their house. At least one county planning officer believes that he can suspend the law of supply and demand in his county and that an increased supply of land will not help to keep the price of land down. That is a disastrous approach. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to play his part in this. Land worth between £1,500 and £2,000 an acre is, with planning consent, worth £300,000 an acre. That engine for inflation of short supply of land must not be let loose on the country as it comes to the end of recession and grows in prosperity in the years ahead.
6.45 pm
Mr. Jimmy Wray: I have sat here all afternoon and I was disappointed by the way in which the Chief Secretary made his speech. He made it clear to Labour Members that he was not interested in getting inflation down. He said that bearing down on inflation was the cornerstone and responsibility of the Government. After the next election, it will be their tombstone.
I represent one of the poorest constituencies in Scotland. Unemployment is probably the highest in Britain, at about 24 per cent., although the Government estimate it at between 16 and 17 per cent. Other statistics tell a different story. At great length, the Chief Secretary went back to the 1970s, when inflation was 31 per cent. He did not remind the House that when the Labour Government left office inflation had been reduced to 7·8 per cent.

1015
Despite all the revenue from Scottish oil, the Government have failed. It must be embarassing for them to have to defend the way in which they have treated the people of this country. The nation now realises the mistake that it has made and how it has been conned, tricked and lied to by Conservative Members. The Chief Secretary did not give the true state of the country. It is a matter not only of inflation—if it were, that would be easy to remedy—but of stabilising prices, which the Government have never been able to do.
Let us look at the state of the country as the Tories will be leaving it to a Labour Government. Inflation has reached 4·1 per cent. From 7·1 per cent. in 1979, it rose to a peak of 10·1 per cent. Should we really trust the Government when they say that they are going for zero inflation? What a piece of nonsense. Any economist will say that a country that aims for zero inflation should take advice and should probably aim for 1 or 2 per cent. to oil the machinery, but the Government have not taken advice from anyone.
The Minister failed to tell the nation how the Government lied in 1983 when inflation was 3·7 per cent. The Government said that they were tackling inflation and aiming for a zero rate, but that was when they were expecting to get re-elected. They had been back in power only two years when inflation increased to 7 per cent. Two years after they had been re-elected in 1987, inflation doubled to 8·3 per cent. Now, in 1992, the Government are hanging on until the last day and there are some faces that we shall not see again. I think that inflation will be trebled if the Conservatives are returned to power—it will go back to 9 per cent.
It was sad that the Minister mentioned Germany when he asked whether any Government had an inflation rate of 1 per cent. He knows that the slump in the German economy has been caused by the reunification of east and west.
He failed to tell the nation that, although inflation is still running at 4·1 per cent., food prices have increased this year by 4·5 per cent. Household services such as postage and telephone bills have increased by 7·8 per cent. and motor prices by 9·1 per cent. Unless the Government can tackle those problems, we shall fall further into a slump.
The Minister did not tell us about the underlying rate of inflation. In 1990, it was 5·6 per cent., but that was without the mortgage interest rate. In 1991, we had the highest inflation rate—5·9 per cent. —of the seven major western economies, including Canada, the United States, Germany, France and Italy, whose inflation rates were hovering at 3 per cent. and 4 per cent.
The Government talk about recession, but they are not interested in the state of the country. They created this recession—;that is the way in which they work. They are not interested in the people of this country—if they had been, they would never have allowed the country to get into such a serious state. It annoys me when a Minister defends the policy of a Government who are in ruins. We have the statistics, and the media are explaining them to the nation.
The Government hope that possibly by encouraging independence in Scotland they will be able to slip in the back door, but the Scottish people are a red-blooded nation, compassionate and caring. Do the Government
1016
honestly believe that the Scottish people would allow the people of England, Ireland and Wales beside whom they have fought and died over hundreds of years to return the Conservatives to power? The Scottish people will vote Labour, and all the rhetoric about independence will go out of the window. A member of the Scottish National party said that we would have a Scottish army. Another said that we would have 50 embassies. But we have hundreds of embassies. We are international socialists.
Poverty and homelessness on the banks of the Clyde are the same as poverty and homelessness on the banks of the Thames, the Rhine or anywhere else, because Europe is uniting. There are now 12 countries in the European Community. Malta, Cyprus, Greece, Spain and Czechoslovakia are now joining it. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale), who is no longer here, referred to the exchange rate mechanism. He said that institutions would withdraw their money from this country, but why will they do that when we are in the ERM?
The Government must get rid of the slums and the poverty that they have created in Britain—10 million people are living in poverty and 180,000 are homeless. If one goes to Centre Point in Soho, one can see the effect of the policies adopted by the Government. They took away income support from 16 and 17-year-olds. In that age group the homelessness rate has now risen to 77 per cent. That is proof of the Government's mistakes. We want a Government who are compassionate and believe in helping the poor, but this Government have failed to do that.
The Government believe in the hierarchy. They are now shouting about the minimum wage, but I did not hear them shouting about the wage increases for those in the hierarchy. Giving people £3·40 an hour means that those people can spend more. If they can spend more, there are more tax revenues and that in turn leads to increased growth. The way to get rid of inflation is to create jobs and to give people more so that they can spend more.
The mathematician on the Government Front Bench thinks that he is a comedian—does he think that he is as funny as Arthur Askey? He referred to Polly the Parrot. That is not the serious stuff that we shall accept from a Minister when the country is in crisis. The Government have been advised by economists that short-term policies will not work. We need long-termism to speed growth in gross national product and gross domestic product, but the Government have failed badly and stuck to high interest charges. The ideal inflation rate is 0 per cent.—in fact, it might be less than that.
We are worried about fraud and bias and the way in which the Government have conned the nation. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made it clear that the Government lied. They said that they wanted people to own their own homes. In 1987, that was the banner under which they fought. They said that every member of society should own his own home. People went to borrow money from the Abbey National and other agencies at a rate of 9 per cent. No sooner were they in their homes, putting on a light and later trying to get a night's sleep when the interest rates went up to 16 per cent. Some 70,500 people have been turfed out of their homes. What are the Government doing about that? Nothing. They have been told about it day in and day out, but they have done nothing.

1017
There are 2·6 million unemployed people, and that is a lot of people. It is very sad when people in my constituency ask when the recession will end. I cannot tell them because we are in such a mess that it will take a long time to get us out of it. Some people in my constituency have never had a job. All that they wait for on a Monday morning is for the giro to come through the door. The only difference between grass and a giro is that, although both are green, one feeds the cattle and one feeds a human being. Some people will never get a job because they are over 50 or 60 and have never had a job under this Government. They have no chance of getting one. Consequently, repossessions take place every day.
Perhaps there are some hidden talents in the Government which have never come to light. They have had three shots and three Chancellors but every Chancellor has either given in or not done the job.
Let us consider the way in which the Government have treated the people of England and Scotland with regard to the poll tax. An extra £14 billion was thrown down the drain. It cost every poll tax payer an extra £178. Those are the hidden costs that no one talks about. The Government are letting the poll tax still run on. They could have abolished it already, but they did not because they knew that youngsters were not putting their names on the register and that there was an election coming up.
What the Government have done to this nation's utilities is a scandal. They have taken our prime resources out of the hands of the many and sold them off to the few. No wonder the senior citizens are shouting about surcharges of £190 at the end of the year, to be paid for out of their poor pensions. Naturally, they wonder what a Labour Government would do. A Labour Government would raise taxes to 50 per cent. for the very rich. It is surely better to tax high earners—those earning more than £30,000—than to give them scandalous rebates of £300 or £400. How could any human being do that? Conservative policy is to give the richest people tax relief. I wonder how Conservatives will explain to the nation why they have so badly treated pensioners, the unemployed and the poor people who have to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax while they live on scraps. No decent politician would stand for that.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Would the hon. Gentleman support the Government if they introduced a generous scheme of rebates or discounts for those who live alone? When the council tax was introduced, Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen opposed the granting of such discounts to pensioners and others living alone, but would the hon. Gentleman support the idea?
Mr. Wray: Yes, we would support it—if the Government got it right. but they are giving rebates to millionaires as well. That is why we oppose the idea. We would certainly give rebates to senior citizens, and we are committed to increasing their pensions, for single people and for couples, by £5 and £8 respectively. That is not a lot but it is a start—it is more than the Tories ever gave them. We will also increase child benefit by a few pounds—the Government froze it for many years.
Mr. Thomas Graham: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that since the Conservatives came to power in 1979 Strathclyde has lost more than half its manufacturing jobs—166,000 of them. As a result, repossessions on an unprecedented scale have
1018
been taking place in Scotland and our young people have had to go on to the streets because they have no homes —the Government have savagely reduced the money allocated to council houses and the number of available council houses. Does my hon. Friend agree that Strathclyde has suffered enough under this dramatically bad Government?
Mr. Wray: Yes. That is why business people in Scotland and England have been gathering in the past two or three months and saying that they would rather back a Labour Government with sound policies than a Government who do not believe in investing in manufacturing, training, technology or anything else.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to speak in the debate.
7.4 pm
Mr. Robert Hicks: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) made a typically robust speech but I am not certain whether his agenda for a Labour Government necessarily coincides with the views of his Front-Bench spokesmen. It is not without significance that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), when describing her interpretation of the sequence of events between 1974 and 1979, did not refer to the role of the International Monetary Fund in determining Labour's financial policies. It was a humiliating experience for this country when the IMF imposed conditions and restraints on us. I hope that that will never happen again, whichever party is in power.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) mentioned the courtesies of this House. There have been few occasions over the years when he and I have agreed on the remedy for political or economic recovery for this country, but we have always agreed on the urgent need for our football team, Plymouth Argyle, to make an immediate recovery so as to avoid relegation from the second division this year.
No one should ever doubt the need to minimise the adverse effects of inflationary tendencies in the economy. At worst, inflation can devastate an economy and undermine the whole fabric of society. That was the worst experience of Germany after the first world war. Certain countries in the third world are experiencing similar phenomena now.
Under the last Labour Government we experienced inflation rates in excess of 20 per cent. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary said that the average inflation in the five years of Labour control was 15 per cent. Due to the external influence of the IMF, restraints were introduced following the wages explosion under the auspices of the so-called social contract. It seems a long time since we went through that experience, but many of my constituents, especially the middle-aged and the elderly, remember the adverse effects. That was undoubtedly an unhappy period.
During a period of high inflation it may seem that people are superficially better off because of pay or pension increases, but we all know from personal experience that few people or businesses are better off. I offer two examples of this; they are of particular relevance given that we may be on the election hustings in the near future. During the mid-1970s, teachers were granted a significant pay increase following the Houghton review. That was to be welcomed; it was an acknowledgment of

1019
the work that teachers undertook for society. But within a couple of years the positive advances represented by that pay increase were eliminated by inflation.
Secondly, the effects on people who depended on pensions and fixed incomes were striking. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale), I represent a constituency in which more than 20 per cent. of the electorate fall into that category. I know from my constituency casework at the time how rapidly people's incomes were eroded in real terms. They retired on what they perceived to be a reasonable income, sufficient to maintain an acceptable standard of living. If their pensions, however, were not subject to automatic review —only a minority in those days enjoyed such pensions —they soon found themselves in genuine financial difficulties.
The Government have been right to concentrate on the need to keep inflation under control. There have been variations. At times during the past 13 years, we have been more successful than at others, but since 1979 inflation has averaged about 7 per cent., half the rate under the previous Labour Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North mentioned, especially since my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) became Prime Minister, we have had to manage the economy against a difficult international background. We have had to take difficult and harsh decisions. It has not been easy for the country as a whole, but the present signs such as average earnings, the level of pay settlements and factory gate prices show that we have become more competitive and thus able to take advantage of any upturn that may occur in the level of world trade and economic activity.
Mr. Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this Government had an incredible windfall from North sea oil and gas, and from the money they reaped from privatisation? The hon. Gentleman referred to the period of the Labour Government when oil prices quadrupled and we did not have our own oil. We were forced into doing things that we would not necessarily have liked to have done. That was true international pressure. Although the Government have reaped the rewards of oil, gas and privatisation, we still have unemployment raging into the millions. How can the Government continue like that after 13 years?
Mr. Hicks: I know the relative impact made on the constituents whom I have represented while I have had the honour to be a Member of Parliament. I have been a Member of Parliament under two Conservative Governments. Some rather critical remarks were made earlier about the first Conservative Prime Minister under whom I served—the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). There is no doubt that when it comes to standards of economic management and to making the best use of the resources at one's disposal, this Government's performance, especially in the past 18 months or so, has been much better than before. I wholeheartedly support the decisions made in the past 18 months.
It has been suggested in the debate that, given the more favourable climate, encouragement might be given in certain sectors to stimulating the level of economic
1020
demand without prejudicing the inflation position. Several of my colleagues have made suggestions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. May I suggest three areas in which a modest boost might be given which, in my view, would not jeopardise the Government's counter-inflation strategy? I do not refer to tax cuts because I am not convinced that that is the best way forward now.
First, we must consider carefully a relaxation of the restraint on local authority capital receipts for low-cost social housing and other specialist housing, such as that for the elderly, for the disabled and for the single homeless. If that could be accompanied by a relaxation of the conditions governing eligibility for home repair and improvement grants, it would be helpful for the housing and construction industry and it would have an immediate, beneficial effect.
Secondly, we must resolve once and for all the procedures governing payments to this country from European regional development fund sources. There is still confusion. In the Plymouth travel-to-work area, of which my constituency is a part, there is still uncertainty about whether we shall be able to take up the full allocation under the RENAVAL programme. At present, we have been able to take up only £3·5 million of £11 million. That has still not been confirmed.
Thirdly, many references have been made to the pressures currently placed on smaller business enterprises. If there are surplus funds at the disposal of the Chancellor, there is a strong case for easing the financial overheads placed on the smaller business units through a freezing of this year's projected increase in the level of the uniform business rate. If hon. Members, whether Opposition Members or Conservative colleagues, are criticial of me for suggesting that, I respectfully remind the House that I was the Conservative Member who, when the uniform business rate was discussed in the House, tabled an amendment suggesting that the transitional period for the new arrangements should be extended from five years to 10 years. I could foresee the genuine problems that smaller business units would face in the short term as a consequence of what may well be a desirable, long-term objective.
I am certain that when we come to the crucial day, which may be sooner rather than later, the country will be in no doubt about the respective merits, based on actual performance, of the two major political parties. All Conservative Members have an obligation to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is returned not only with a majority sufficient to give him the ability to form a future Administration, but with a majority large enough that he does not have to worry about the position of the minority parties or about a hung Parliament.
7.17 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: We have heard a characteristically attractive and honest speech from the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks). I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not take up all his points, although I will refer to one or two as I go along.
When the Government chose to have a debate on inflation, I hoped that we should learn how a Conservative Government, if elected, would improve on their poor inflation record during this Parliament. I hoped that we should also learn how a Conservative Government,

1021
committed to a balanced budget, would justify having a public sector borrowing requirement of more than £20 billion. I hoped that we should also learn how a Conservative Government would get us out of recession. We have heard none of that from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Instead, we heard a speech of astonishing vacuity and triviality—a speech almost empty of serious content.
Only a party facing defeat at a general election would have launched such a debate—and in such a manner. Only a Government without a sense of shame would have called a debate about inflation. Of course we all welcome the decline in inflation from its double figures high point in 1990. It certainly demonstrates the effectiveness of the exchange rate mechanism, which many of us have supported for a long time, or British membership of it, as a framework for reducing inflation.
However, the Chief Secretary failed to point out that the Government are responsible for putting inflation into double figures in the first place. As one of my colleagues asked, if the battle against inflation is so important for the Government, how come we have to win it twice?
Sir David Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was reducing interest rates and making credit easier, which caused the boom to which the hon. Gentleman refers and the inflation that followed, Labour and Liberal Front-Bench Members were calling for him to do even more? That would have stoked up an even higher rate of inflation and caused even worse problems.
Mr. Radice: I am about to refer to precisely that point. The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next argument.
The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) used to boast of bringing inflation down to zero, but that was before he and the present Prime Minister, who was then Chief Secretary, allowed the economy to become out of control during the 1987–88 boom. Everybody now agrees that that period was a disaster for the country. Some of us actually said so at the time. I do not want to quote myself, but I shall do so if the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) wishes.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not just the mistake of reducing interest rates too sharply in the wake of the October 1987 stock market crash, as the Prime Minister suggested at Question Time yesterday. Many other countries did precisely that, but they then put up interest rates. A much more important factor was the unprecedented explosion of credit and borrowing which followed financial deregulation.
If the hon. Gentleman doubts me, I pray in aid the right hon. Member for Blaby, who said precisely that about a month ago. He pointed out that that was the major cause of what happened. That explosion of credit had the effect of inflating the house market, and it led to a splurge of consumer spending. It was an important factor.
Most objective commentators would agree that another major error was the tax-cutting budget of 1988, which reduced taxes by £6 billion and gave all the wrong signals to the consumer when the economy was already out of control. The result of those crass policy errors was a badly overheated economy, which led to soaring inflation and a record balance of payments deficit.
The Government also fail to point out—we heard nothing about it from the Chief Secretary—the other side
1022
of the coin. They have managed to reduce inflation from its high point only because they have also created the longest recession since the 1930s, a recession which is still with us. I was amazed not to hear of that from the Chief Secretary. As we all know, GDP, excluding oil, has declined for six successive quarters since the second quarter of 1990. I hope that we hear less of the humbug about our recession being due to world recession. The Government know that that is nonsense, and they should stop pretending otherwise.
In March 1991, the Government, the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted to the Treasury Select Committee that the British recession was home-grown. In answer to a question from me, the Governor of the Bank of England said:
"The recession here is in response to what was undeniably an excessive growth in previous years and what might be called unilateral correction by us."
There was nothing about world recession.
The next day, even more significantly, the Chancellor, in answer to another question from me, said:
"I do not think that there is a world recession. I think it is absolutely true that the main cause and origin of the recession is a response to the very fast growth which exceeded the underlying growth of capacity."
He did not blame a world recession; he said that it is a response to our getting the economy out of hand.
In short, our recession was not a response to world factors but was acknowledged, even by Ministers, to be "home-grown", a way of dealing with the inflation that they themselves had caused. It is clear what has happened to the British economy. To bring it back into balance, the Government put up interest rates to record levels. They relied entirely on interest rates because, for ideological reasons, they ruled out putting up direct taxes, as they were urged to do by many commentators.
Reliance exclusively on interest rates took a long time to work. It had malign side effects, particularly on the housing market and investment, and ultimately it plunged Britain into a very deep recession, with all that that means in lost output, redundancies, bankruptcies and rising unemployment.
The real question facing the House and the country is how we bring about a recovery without driving up inflation again. The Government spent more than a year saying that recovery was in sight—just around the corner. We were told that the economy would recover in a natural, cyclical way, as destocking ended and consumer confidence revived. Despite all the optimistic forecasts—many made to the House and to the Treasury Select Committee—and despite all the fine ministerial words, the recovery has simply not arrived. Indeed, Ministers have recently adopted a new formula. They say that the ingredients for recovery are now in place—whatever that means.
If we are to know what to do and if we are to have recovery without putting up inflation again, it is important to analyse what has gone wrong. We cannot blame the recent slowdown in the German and French economies for our own recession or for the slowness of our economy to recover. Indeed, our exports to the EC—we actually heard it from the Chief Secretary—have been one of the few success stories of the past year or so.
The key problem is the reluctance of the British consumer to spend, despite falling inflation and reduced interest rates. The Governor of the Bank of England is probably right to say that consumers

1023
"may be making attempts to reduce their existing debt holdings in much the same way that companies … have sought to reduce their borrowings."
In other words, consumers having taken on an excessive level of debt in the early 1980s—[Interruption.]— I wonder whether the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), who is speaking from a sedentary position, might listen, because it is a point that he knows very well—are understandably reluctant to take on new commitments. My conclusion is that we cannot, indeed should not, rely solely on the consumer to bring about recovery.
The Government also have a role particularly in fiscal policy, as the Treasury Select Committee has pointed out. In that connection, it has been hilarious to observe the Government, in their dying days, suddenly rediscovering Keynesianism. One would think that the so-called monetarist revolution of the early 1980s, which the hon. Member for Selly Oak opposed, had never happened. I feel quite sorry for some of the devotees of the medium-term financial strategy who are still stranded on the Conservative Benches.
Whatever happened to controlling the money supply? What about reducing public spending or reducing the public sector borrowing requirement? What about balanced budgets? All the things we used to hear about in the 1980s are a thing of the past. We are told, "Don't worry about it." Now we are told that the Government have decided to increase borrowing to pay for tax cuts —"borrowing billions to bribe millions", as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has put it. That is deathbed Keynesianism with a vengeance. Indeed, it is living proof that, in Major's Tory party, electoral expediency always comes first.
I believe—here I agree with the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East—that reducing the standard rate, as the Government apparently propose, is the least effective way of bringing Britain out of recession, and the most dangerous for inflation.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend, with whom I sit on the Treasury Select Committee and for whom I have great regard, tell us how increasing taxation on those we need to gear up the recovery will help the economy, them or the future Labour Government for which he hopes?
Mr. Radice: Our top rate of taxation is the lowest in the European Community. I believe that it is sensible for those who are well off to pay a fair rate of tax. I do not believe that they are doing so at present. I do not see any evidence that reducing taxes on the very rich improves the supply side of the economy. All the evidence is that they tend to do less work.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: That is not an answer.
Mr. Radice: Well, it is an answer that satisfies me, even if it does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
Given the problem of personal debt—[Interruption.] I wonder whether I could hold the attention of the hon. Member for Selly Oak for a second—it will not necessarily be enough to encourage people to spend by reducing taxes. Judging from the continuing high figures for imports—despite the recession—even if they spend, much of the money which goes in tax cuts could leak away on foreign
1024
goods. Using up public resources on tax cuts means that there is less money for other anti-recession measures and for investment in education, training and research and development—all important items. Above all, the recovery would be insecurely based and inflation-prone. If the recovery was based on tax cuts, it would be a recipe for another round of the stop-go to which we have become so accustomed under the Conservative Government.
If part of the objective is to increase consumer spending, and so bring about a sustained recovery, it would be far more sensible, as well as more socially desirable, to increase child benefit and pensions, as the Labour party proposes. In that way we could at least be certain that a good proportion of the increase would go directly into consumption.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Where will the money come from?
Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman asks where the money will come from. That happens to apply also to the Government, who propose to reduce the standard rate of tax and pay for it by borrowing. We cannot have any lectures from the Conservative party about financial rectitude when it has amassed such an enormous public sector borrowing requirement. The hon. Gentleman's point cannot be a serious one.
As my right hon. Friends suggest and as the Confederation of British Industry recommends, we will also need to give assistance to industry through investment incentives and the acceleration of infrastructure projects. At the same time, we must make an immediate start on investing in education, training and research and development, thus improving the supply side of the economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said, we must look at both the demand and supply sides of the economy if we are to bring inflation under control.
If we are serious about reducing inflation and keeping it down, about creating a recovery and sustaining it and about looking beyond 9 April to seek a long-term future for the British economy, we will need a mixed set of objectives to emphasise not only control of inflation but sustaining growth, increasing investment and creating jobs. We will also need a mixed set of policy instruments. We cannot rely entirely on interest rates, as the Government have done.
Above all, we shall need a balance in the economy, which we have signally failed to achieve in the past five years. On their past record, we shall never obtain that from the Conservative Government. That is yet another reason why we need a Labour Government.
7.34 pm
Mr. David Evans: I make no apology for taking a trip down memory lane, because there are many young people who will vote for the first time in the forthcoming election and I do not believe that they understand what the consequences of a Labour Government would be.
I agreed for once with the Leader of the Opposition when he admitted in one of his habitual gaffes that Labour did not have a clue how to tackle inflation. We certainly know that that is true. I am relieved to find that he and his party have finally come clean on the issue. Therefore, it is not surprising that he goes out of his way to avoid talking

1025
about inflation. That probably comes as a huge relief to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).
Anti-inflationary policy is a clear indicator of a party's fitness to govern. Sound money lies at the heart of a stable community. It determines whether a Government can produce the conditions for prosperity or must break their promises. That is why any debate on inflation will quickly spill over the narrow confines of economic theory. Its scope is far wider than that. Inflation is a scourge which harms senior citizens, mortgage payers, people on fixed incomes and especially those with savings. It undermines our ability to export and create long-term employment. Real jobs come from making things that people want to buy at the right price.
Unit costs are paramount. That is something that the Labour party clearly does not understand. Simply to ignore the problem reveals at best a total lack of comprehension of the real world and at worst a gross dereliction of duty. I can think of no greater single threat to the general well-being of the British people than hyper-inflation.
The Government understand the aspirations of working people and business. That is why in the past 12 years we have made the battle against inflation our highest priority. That is why we have more people in work than ever before and why we have more small businesses than ever before. We have proved that economic growth in the United Kingdom can be based only on low inflation. That is why the United Kingdom grew faster than Germany or France in the 1980s. In the previous two decades, we had the slowest growth of the major EC countries.
If inflation goes unchecked, the achievements of British industry are continually undermined. For example, it has been estimated that each additional percentage point of inflation costs business £5,000 million a year—an unacceptable overhead over which the Government have direct control. If inflation is rampant, the confidence of industry is undermined and uncertainty spreads. As companies look no further ahead than the short term, they fail to invest in new jobs and equipment. They begirt to lose their competitive edge.
The Government have given firms the confidence to invest. Today, business investment is almost 60 per cent. higher than it was in 1981. Since 1979, it has grown faster in the United Kingdom than in France and Germany. Furthermore, interest rates rise with inflation. That reduces cash flow, particularly in small companies with a limited ability to borrow. Inevitably, people with mortgages are also hit.
Our membership of the exchange rate mechanism inevitably places constraints on the extent of interest rate cuts. We understand that. Nevertheless, since my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) took over as Prime Minister, interest rates have fallen by 5·5 percentage points. Such truths appear self evident to Conservatives. That is why we have been so single-minded in our quest for low inflation. Labour is likely to have more success in the quest for the holy grail. The used and damaged goods which it palms off as economic policy would light a bonfire of inflation, which would become the funeral pyre of the British economy. In the 1970s, Brazil and the United Kingdom once again had two things in common—Ronnie Biggs and hyper-inflation.
Labour claims that inflation can be curbed by introducing credit controls, and that they should be used
1026
rather than interest rates. Unfortunately, even after 12 years in opposition, they have not decided what form their credit controls would take. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has pointed out that, since 85 per cent. of personal credit takes the form of mortgages, credit controls would have to cover mortgage borrowing if they were to have any impact on overall levels of activity in the economy.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East disagrees. He wants to inhibit the banks' capacity to lend. It is self-defeating for anyone searching for an alternative to interest rates to argue for direct controls on the quality of money in the banking system.
The Opposition's policy would result in higher interest rates. That has always been Labour's way—it has tried, and it has failed. It is hardly surprising that Labour clings ever more tightly to the exchange rate mechanism. Its recent conversion is the product of blind panic rather than fiscal prudence. It sees the ERM as an answer to all its problems. It is an escape route from tough economic decisions. Someone should be kind and tell those on the Labour Front Bench that the ERM means being willing to accept high interest rates and limits on spending and borrowing—the two things that Labour Members and socialists have closest to their hearts.
Why are the Opposition shy about telling us what they would do if they were in government? If they are not going to devalue, interest rates would have to go up. We all know that that would happen under Labour. Why are Labour Members so shy about it? Why do they not come clean?
Aside from those examples of Labour's kamikaze approach to economics, I am concerned about their taxation rates. It is obvious, even to the most left-wing commentator, that, to meet its multitude of spending policies, Labour would have to increase taxes. The Oppositon have tried to hide that, just as the benevolent drunk buys a few drinks, but their multitude of policy documents remain full of expensive promises for every interest group under the sun.
Labour may no longer be a party of principle, but it is a party of priorities—literally dozens of them, £35 billion of them. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said that education is the first priority. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has said that the United Nations aid target is a top priority. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) tells us that bridging the skills gap will be a priority. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East thinks that growth in investment is the key priority. Labour politicians are reeling off the goodies like over-zealous games show hosts—£35 billion, £36 billion, and so the list goes on.
Treasury Ministers have rightly calculated that Labour's promises amount to an extra £35 billion in public expenditure. Everyone knows that that extra spending will be financed through higher direct taxation—through £20 a week in direct taxation on everyone earning more than £20,000 a year. Do Opposition Members think that 180,000 teachers earn too much? If they do not, why are they going to take another £20 in tax off them?
The Government are in a position to borrow because we have had the prudence to pay back £27 billion of borrowing since 1979. While our public sector borrowing requirement is 1·75 per cent. of GDP, Labour's reached a peak of 9·5 per cent. in 1975–76. It was robbing Peter to pay Paul.

1027
I want my children to hear about the experiences of the 1970s, which show what happens when taxes increase, as they inevitably do under a Labour Government. I recall visiting a supermarket with my wife in the mid-1970s, looking for some Branston pickle. We could not find it because the front of the jar was taken up with price increases which had been stuck on. When we found it, my wife said, "Don't buy the first one, look at the back, because you'll find one cheaper."
Mr. Burt: Since my hon. Friend is taking a trip down memory lane, does he recall the days when there was an overwhelming smell of methylated spirits in supermarkets because the shop assistants were taking off last week's prices and putting on this week's? Does he not fear that that time will return?
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right, although in my case they were not taking the prices off with methylated spirits but just sticking them over the old ones. One could not tell what the product was because so many price increases had been stuck on. If one shopped around for a while, one could cut a lot from the grocery bill by taking products from the back because the bloke had not had time to stick the new price on.
When employers grant wage increases that they cannot afford, they pass them on in higher prices; hence the Branston pickle. The result is a wage-price spiral that benefits no one, except ferry companies and airlines as people scurry to other countries where they can earn a living and not pay ridiculous rates of tax. Add to that Labour's plan for a national minimum wage. Can one believe it? Think of all the youngsters and women with families who want to work. Labour will do away with that, and the price of goods and unit costs will go up. Labour has no consideration for the nation, or for the millions of people who like going to work and like having a part-time job. It is total nonsense.
The Minister said last week that that might cost 100,000 jobs. I think that he has got it wrong and that the figure will be nearer 2 million.
Mr. Radice: Or 20 million?
Mr. Evans: Two million will do.
A socialist Government would hurt the very people it claimed to protect. The worst cruelty of the 1970s was that high inflation robbed pensioners of their lifetime savings. During the nightmare of the late 1970s, there was a 30 per cent. reduction in the value of their savings. It was not until the 1980s that they started to see a decent return on the money that they had spent a lifetime scraping together. I am sick and tired of the Opposition and of the bleeding heart tendency, who try to claim that the moral high ground belongs to them, while advocating policies which would hurt the people that they claim to respect—the unskilled and the low-waged.
When Labour Members were in government, they even resorted three times in five years to taking away the £10 Christmas bonus, yet they tell us that they will look after pensioners. They are going to give pensioners £5 or £8, but inflation will be ripping away at 27 per cent. They took Christmas pudding off the pensioners.
We have created conditions for lasting national prosperity. Since 1979, the average inflation rate has been
1028
7·6 per cent., less than half Labour's comparable figure of 15·5 per cent. Our best figure has been 2·4 per cent.—Labour can only dream about that. The only time that the Labour Government invested in a space programme was when inflation went into orbit.
In August 1975, our inflation rate made us the sick joke of Europe. When I am at home, my children ask me, "Come on; what was Labour's highest inflation rate?" I say, "Have a guess." They say, "10 per cent." I say no. They ask, "11 per cent?" I say, "Sorry." They say, "12 per cent." [HON. MEMBERS: "Higher."] They say, "13 per cent." [HON. MEMBERS: "Higher."] They say, "It can't have been 14 per cent." [HON. MEMBERS: "Higher."] "15?" [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] "16?" [HON. MEMBERS: Morel They say, "Oh come on, dad; you've got to be joking. Was it 17?" (HON. MEMBERS: "More."]"18?" They say, "Make a cup of tea, mum, this is getting silly." When they get up to 20 per cent., they say, "Oh, it can't be true. This must be a joke you're telling us. 21 per cent? 22 per cent? 23? 24? 25? 26? 27? That's unbelievable." The truth is that it is a joke. Here we are now with an inflation rate of 4.1, and the Opposition are still not satisfied.
The current rate of inflation would have had Jim Callaghan and Denis Healey dancing above No. 10. Those two fiddlers on the roof staked their faith and reputation on the social contract, which, because of inflation and greed, was a disaster for this country. Who will ever forget Customs and Excise, railway men, tanker drivers, rubbish collectors and grave diggers going on strike because of greed and because inflation had overtaken them? They had to strike for more money. The National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees got the support services on strike. It was a nightmare: everybody was being blackmailed by the unions, the TGWU lot, with their beer and sandwiches in No. 10 at 11 o'clock every morning, when the chant was, "We want more, we want more."
The Chancellor left for Heathrow in his Jaguar, and on his way he found that the IMF, the official receiver, had arrived. It had come to run our country and to tell us whether we would be able to pay for this or that. The Government totally relinquished their responsibility and the IMF was in Downing street telling them how to run the country and look after our people. That is what happened when that lot were in power. The Chancellor finally told us why the IMF was here.

Our policies are tried and tested—and, just as important, we have had the courage to stick to them. In 1981, 364 economists told us that the recession would never end if we continued our policy of reducing inflation but we stuck to our guns and proved them wrong. In 1985, the raising of interest rates to 14 per cent. was highly unpopular, but we faced the unpopularity and inflation came down again. We have the stomach to take unpalatable decisions which will ultimately benefit the country, and we shall continue to do so.
Labour has seen the basis of its economic policy laughed out of every country in eastern Europe. To Labour, a credible economic policy means keeping the IMF out of the Treasury. That would be its sole ambition, so that the IMF was not telling a Labour Government what to do. What better example of that could there be than the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) being dragged back from Heathrow? Bookmakers say that they would rather offer odds on the prospect of night following day than on the likelihood of inflation going

1029
down under a Labour Government. That is what is known as a racing certainty, and it is also a racing certainty that that lot will not get back into power.
7.54 pm
Mr. Derek Enright: I shall continue the stroll down memory lane which was started by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). I recall the winter of discontent in 1978 and I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who at that time was Leader of the House and the Member for Ebbw Vale, coming to the by—election at Pontefract and Castleford. We told him that I million people were unemployed and that the trade deficit was £500 million. We said that the average interest rate that year was 10.7 per cent., taxes were averaging 34.75 per cent. of people's wages and that 3,000 houses a year were being repossessed. We told him that those things were unacceptable and that we could not stomach them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent is very wise and he said, "I agree, it is indeed bad. But if the other lot get in, it will be even worse." I did not believe him and I have suffered for that. The figures show that there are now 2.5 million unemployed people—1.5 million more than during the winter of discontent. The current trade deficit is £5.6 billion, 11 times what it was when Labour was in power. The average interest rate is 12.4 per cent., 2 per cent. up, and taxes average 37 per cent. of people's wages, almost 3 per cent. up. Worst of all, there have been 75,000 house repossessions. That means that 75,000 families are paying for the Government's ham—fisted attempt to deal with inflation.
Part of my constituency covers Wentbridge and cognoscenti on the Government side will realise that Wentbridge was the home of Anthony Barber. We all know about baby booms and we remember Barber booms. We recall what he did to the economy and what a Labour Government had to do to remedy that. We had to struggle when the price of oil quadrupled, but no Conservative Member has mentioned that. That price increase caused enormous difficulties, but in spite of them we were able to stay below the average rate of inflation in the European Community. That cannot be said of the past five years. Inflation in Britain has increased more than in any Community country. That is appalling.
Sir Gerrard Neale: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why, for the first time since the war, the United Kingdom has lower inflation than Germany and the lowest rate for many years?
Mr. Enright: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures, but they are totally wrong. I shall give him some accurate figures on what the pound was worth in 1979 and what it is worth now. Conservative Members have spoken about printing money. In 1979 the pound was worth $2.12, but it is now worth $1.75—an 18 per cent. drop. In 1979 the pound was worth 465.57 yen, but it is now worth 225.5 yen—57 per cent. down. In 1979 the rate for the pound was DM 3·89, but it is now DM 2·88—a 26 per cent. drop. I do not wish to be unfair and admit that our economy has done rather better than some others, especially in terms of currency. Greece and Portugal are two countries that have done worse, and we could certainly look at countries on the west coast of Africa. I
1030
congratulate the Government on managing to keep ahead of those economies. It is a pretty poor state when we have to boast of how well we do—
Mr. Radice: Does not what my hon. Friend has said give the lie to the Conservative party, which accuses us of always devaluing the pound? Since 1979, it is the Conservative Government who have considerably devalued the pound.
Mr. Enright: My hon. Friend makes the point with great clarity. The problem for the Government, which is shared by the Liberal Democrats, is that they take a one—dimensional view of the economy. There are no hues or shades; there is no four—sided consideration. The Government come up with one solution at a time. They cannot think laterally—they think in tidy lines.
I shall cite a good example of how the planning and the policy of the Government inevitably lead to inflation—inflation not just this year, but increases being stoked up for 20 years ahead. The Government take an accountant's view, year in and year out. They say, "Is there a little bit of profit this year? Jolly good, let's see if we can get one next year." They do not plan for five or 10 years ahead.
That lack of planning is clearest in the Government's energy policy. There used to be 12 pits in my constituency. I accept that a couple of them had to close because they were worked out—there is no argument about that—but other pits have 30 years' coal reserves. For reasons that I cannot understand, those pits are being closed. Perhaps it is ideology; perhaps it is an inability to think things through. We are gradually being left at the mercy of foreign fuels. We are not looking to the next century—yet, by then, coal will once again have overtaken all other forms of fuel as the principal factor in the production of the energy that we need. There has been no thought of that.
The Government say that they have spent lots and lots of money on the coal industry, and they have. I grant them that. However, that money has been spent not on keeping pits alive, not on clean coal technology and not on getting together with our European friends, but on closing pits and paying off men to get them out of work. We should think of the heedlessness of the Government's attitude towards those who have been made redundant, all in the so—called cause of bringing down inflation.
It does not matter whether those people used to work for the electricity boards or in the pits. Those people are, perhaps 50 and they have their pay—off of £40,000. That is not a lot of money on which to live; it will not do them a great deal of good. They get that money and they think that it will be a bit of a nest egg. They can get out of what is perhaps not a very good environment and they hope to start earning again—but no, they are not allowed on the Government's training schemes. Quite frankly, on some occasions I tell them that they are lucky not to be allowed on them. I can give an example from my constituency about those schemes. A gentleman who came to see me last weekend said, "I went on the training scheme and I was promised that I could train for a heavy goods vehicle licence, but I have now been with the firm for three months and I have spent that entire time delivering packages here, there and everywhere, in a little van on my own." The Government's training schemes are just cheap labour and the Government are subsidising that in different areas. It is appalling.

1031
I prefer to call the minimum wage the just wage. When I was brought up in the Young Christian Workers, we talked about the need for a just wage. We talked unashamedly about the state having a part to play in a just wage—just as all the Christian Democrats on the continent believe. They are happy to accept a just wage. I would accept that challenge, too. Conservative Members know that if they visit a car factory in Germany on a Friday, the workers are not eking out the work to get overtime to help to pay the rent or to pay for a holiday. They say, "We are earning sufficient now. We are proud of our products and we are going to get on with producing them. We want to have as much free time as possible." They get the job done. That is what happens in a high—wage economy.
If we insist on having a low—wage economy, we will have low—value jobs and skills will be wiped out. That has happened. We who have relied upon the textile industry to provide jobs know that only too well. The multi—fibre arrangement was meant to be a form of work swapping. It was intended that people in the industry should move out of it and into high—tech industry so that poorer parts of the world could then develop their textile industries. What happened? Jobs were lost, but there was no positive planning by the Government to bring in new technology.
We know what the Government's policies are all about —they do not put them together. We cannot look at just one thing at one time; we have to deal with education, training, the health service and industry and develop them together. How to get the balance right depends on what is found in the books—and, quite frankly, I am terrified of what we will find in the books.

I want to say a word about the exchange rate mechanism. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are rather taken with the ERM. I am sorry to attack the hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith) in his absence, but he made certain comments about the ERM. I understand why he has had to return to his constituency; I am sure that my very good friend Gordon Adam will beat him at the next general election.
The ERM does not depend merely on interest rates. Nor, because we are in the ERM, are we so susceptible to the old so—called run on the pound. Conservative Members are living in the old days. The very fact that the new Labour Government will be in the ERM with a commitment, together with the rest of Europe, to bring in the social charter will bring the support that we need from the other members of the European Community. Our determination to do that, which was confirmed to me just a fortnight ago, already impresses people, not from the European Parliament, but from the other member Governments. I am proud of that.
When the Chief Secretary was talking about pretty polly parrots, he reminded me of the Greek story about Echo. She was a nymph who went to Hera, her mother —[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It is a historical story.
Mr. Enright: Echo went to her mother and told beautiful tales that entranced her. While she was telling the tales, naughty things were going on. Echo did not realise what was happening, and she kept on telling the beautiful tales and the naughty things kept happening. Hera said, "I
1032
will punish you so that everything you say is mere repetition of the last thing said." I was reminded of that because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very like that. If the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said, "Poll tax, poll tax", he said, "Poll tax, poll tax"—and then it went down to the Chief Secretary. Every little twist and turn in policy has been followed slavishly. Echo met her end when she encountered Narcissus—who fell in love with his reflection, jumped in the water and drowned. That is what will happen to the Government—and the sooner the better.
8.9 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: I enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). He causes amusement among Opposition Members, but that is prompted more by worry than anything else. They know that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield has his finger on the pulse.
Mr. Barry Field: He is the voice of Britain.
Mr. Burt: Just as my hon. Friend says. When my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield expresses in such clear terms his fears of how Labour would run the country, he knows that many are listening. The appropriate classical analogy is not with Hera but with Prometheus, who was chained to the rock, and every day had part of his liver torn out. That is what would happen to Britain if Labour took office.
I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), but I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) is not in his place, for I enjoyed his speech also. He spoke of the knockabout nature of the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary. One always knows when Labour Members are worried, because they refer to "knockabout". Last week, they referred to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in those terms, but we all know how much damage it did them. It was a good speech.
Today, my right hon. and learned Friend did not make a knockabout speech but exposed the large gaps in Labour's policies for dealing with inflation. The hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that he did not expect to discover in today's debate further question marks over Labour's inflation policies, but did so.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent went wrong when he referred to the prostitution of this Parliament. That was over the top. The right hon. Gentleman saw his party, Government, and country bend over backwards to allow the trade union movement to take over. That was real prostitution, and the right hon. Gentleman should always remember that.
History teaches us much about the ravages of inflation on not only a country's internal economic development but relationships between nations as a consequence of economic decline and expansionism—with the aggressive nationalism that that often produces—but it is remarkable how little history has taught the British Labour party. Little attention is paid in its calculations to the effect of inflation on the future.
We can all be forgiven for imagining that inflation matters very little to Labour. It appears from today's

1033
performance by Labour Front Benchers that they do not appreciate the importance of inflation, which is why they have no policies for dealing with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield said, that alone should disqualify Labour from ever holding office.
Inflation is arguably the biggest single threat to any economy. It devalues currency over a long period. thus affecting the competitiveness of nationally—based industries, as well as the savings of all—and especially of those on fixed incomes. Investment and savings are the key to this country's recovery from the present worldwide recession. Increasing competitiveness in industry has already been made possible by the Government over the past decade. Higher manufacturing productivity proves that, as does Britain's share of world trade in manufactures, which has increased for the third year in succession.
That performance is likely to improve only in a low tax, low interest rate, and low inflation economy. The raw material for capital investment in industry comes not from Government, as the Opposition so often suggest, but from savings—which are often derided by Labour as unearned income. Try telling those of our constituents who have worked hard all their lives to put a little money away that that is unearned income.
Labour makes no secret of its high taxation policies, regardless of the growing number of economic advisers who support the Government's contention that the way out of the present recession is to encourage lower taxation as a stimulus for industry and higher personal consumption. Labour's taxes on savings would damage the crucial raw material needed for industrial recovery. It is as if Labour was stuck in a time warp—in the 1960s and 1970s—when the world was a different place, and socialism was alive—if not particularly well—and stalking the world with its flawed economic analyses. The world has moved on, but Labour has not—and it persists in following policies that would fuel inflation and exacerbate recession.
Raised public sector expectations were the down fall of the last Labour Government, in the winter of discontent —and Labour is starting that whole process over again. One remembers training levies, interference in business, and higher interest rates. This afternoon, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary described, analyst by analyst, the expected scenario of higher interest rates under Labour. He quoted the Confederation of British Industry's assertion that every percentage point increase in inflation rates adds another £5 billion to industry's costs.
A survey by The Financial Weekly found that 87 per cent. of fund managers believe that the Conservatives are better at controlling inflation and that only 3 per cent. backed Labour. In another survey, The Independent on Sunday found that only 5 per cent. of top business executives trust Labour to control inflation, while 91 per cent. distrust Labour's anti—inflation credentials. Those are the very people whom Labour expect to be in the forefront of recovery should it form a Government—but they have no confidence in Labour. Some recovery that would be.
In debating inflation on a larger scale, sometimes we forget to relate it to our constituents. Labour talks incessantly of the need to put money into public services, but appears to have forgotten the connection between that and the need to control inflation. My constituents have not. During the 1974–79 Labour Government, as inflation went through the roof and the country moved towards
1034
bankruptcy and the International Monetary Fund, the Government had great plans for my constituency, as for many others. The effect of the catastrophic situation that Labour Government brought upon themselves turned those dreams to nightmares.
We saw first restrictions on local government finance. I quote from a 1975 circular entitled "Local authority expenditure: Financial Planning 1976–77". It required local government expenditure to go on standstill for the following year. Bearing in mind the rate of inflation then, standstill meant real reductions in expenditure. Paragraph 7 of that document stated:
"But there will inevitably be a reduction in the standard of local services."
Paragraph 12 added:
"Those local authorities that have already allowed children to be admitted full time to infant classes on reaching the age of 4 should review this policy in the interests of economy. Rising 5s should not be admitted unless they make no additional call on educational resources."
So much for Labour's current plans on nursery education for all. Labour promises, but it cannot deliver. That was the reality when Labour was last in government, and it would be the reality next time.
If that were not bad enough, I will describe the effect of the last Labour Government on Bury's health services. For the first time since the inception of the NHS in 1948, expenditure fell in my constituency between 1974 and 1979, by 2 per cent. The effect on services can be imagined. Capital expenditure plans were reduced, and the general hospital for which my constituents had long waited had to wait for a Conservative Government before it was built.
That is what inflation means in practice. If one lets the economy run into the sand, one cannot do what one has promised. Local authority and health services were badly neglected in my constituency. Labour cannot deliver the caring services that it is always talking about.
If the control and conquest of inflation in the past has had an effect on my constituency, I hope that, once we are through the present recession, firm control of the economy will have a beneficial future effect for not only my constituency but for the development of Conservative thought and policy as we head towards the year 2000.
In the past, I have made no secret of my concern about the fact that, from time to time, the Conservative party in government has become over—identified with an economic rigidity that extends far beyond its normal remit. The market philosophy, while of enormous benefit in its own sphere, can be inappropriate when applied to other aspects of life. I have always believed that economics is a good friend of Governments, but not always the best master.
Unlike the Labour party, the present Conservative Government have always understood that conquering inflation gives the firmest base to the economy. Only firm control of the economy gives a Government the opportunity to put into practice the other policies—the social policies—that are a necessary adjunct of any modern Government. In a sense, traditional Conservativism has seen off its greatest enemy: an outdated and fatally flawed socialist theory of both society and the economy. At the hour of its greatest triumph, however, it is important that modern Conservatism is not sabotaged by a laissez—faire market capitalistic model that would threaten to undermine the social consensus that has grown up in the United Kingdom.
In my view, that social consensus has much in common with the German social market philosophy. It recognises

1035
the essentially free-market nature of capitalism, but it also recognises its limits, and its need to be controlled from time to time. If socialism is finally to be defeated, we must ensure that everyone in the country has a stake in what modern free—market economics can produce for the country as a whole.
That means that the next Conservative Government, as well as committing themselves resolutely to the firm control of inflation and the management of the economy, must ensure that they continue to strive for solutions to the major social problems of our time. They must be determined to make the reduction of unemployment a priority. They must be determined to break down further the apathy and inertia that can often blight the lives of many people on our public housing estates. They must continue the initiatives that are being launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in relation to inner cities. They must continue, and intensify, their work in relation to the homeless, and must redouble their efforts to ensure that no one is left out of modern society because of lack of opportunity to improve educational skills, before and after leaving school.
The next Conservative Government must also continue to ensure that modern industrial society looks at the pollution caused by the processes of the 19th century with a 20th—century eye, so that growth and production are not incompatible with a high quality of life.
Many factors are needed to combat the social problems that affect not only this country, but many countries in modern society. One is the absolute determination and commitment of the Government of the day—and I am convinced that a Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) will possess that determination. A second is the economic means to combat the problems—an economic base that can be achieved only through the firm control of inflation. I am convinced that only a Government led by my right hon. Friend can do that.
Labour's lack of consideration and understanding of those issues has damaged my constituents and the country in the past. We must ensure that it does not have the chance to do the same again.
8.22 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) referred to the "prostitution" allegation made, quite fairly, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. On the last occasion when we spoke together in a debate, he took a courageous step by not supporting his party—the Government—and taking a stand on its atrocious decision not to back the timely, if overdue, attempt to ban the sale of tobacco products in Europe. The hon. Gentleman said no to that, and the decision fell in Committee.
If we are to discuss who is prostituted in the House, perhaps we should examine the difference between the two sides. Unlike many other Opposition Members, I am not supported or sponsored by a trade union, a commercial organisation or any other body. Unfortunately for Conservative Members, I believe that the Government's craven decision—which has since been reinforced—not to back the attempt to reduce the amount of smoking among
1036
young people, when we know that the tobacco firms are deliberately concentrating their £100 million advertising campaign on the young, is largely due to the fact that Conservative Members have prostituted their position in the House.
The figures are telling. Although Conservative Members repeatedly speak of Labour Members' being in hock to the unions, the truth is very different. Only 17 Opposition Members are paid advisers to trade unions, and even if we include all the others with paid involvement, the total is only 14 per cent. As for Conservative Members, 85 per cent.—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying very far from the motion.
Mr. Flynn: I shall come back to the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think that the matter needs—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come back to it immediately, because he is very far from it.
Mr. Flynn: This preposterous motion asks us to congratulate the Government on the terrible state in which we now find ourselves. The speech with which the Chief Secretary opened the debate began with a joke about a parrot and ended with a joke about a haggis; there was very little in between. In their pre—election tension—hysteria, even—the Government seem to feel that the answer to all their problems is to put on cheap vaudeville acts at the Dispatch Box: we were given another of those last week.
The Government have begun to believe their own mythology. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) talked, quite erroneously, about the difference between the interest rate in this country and that in Germany. What we have now is not the best interest rate in Europe, or among similar countries; we have just about got down to the average—but at what an enormous cost, in bankruptcies, soaring unemployment and the collapse of the housing market.
Only today, we have learnt from an authoritative organisation that 2.5 million households are struggling with debt. According to its report, many people suspected that that was so, but only now is the seriousness of the position recognised. At least one of the main determinants has been the Government's decision about the social fund, which meant that those in desperate need were given loans —or, if they could not repay such loans, received nothing. All those families have become caught up in a cycle of debt that overshadows their whole lives. Instead of living life to the full, they find that their every action and decision is determined by their debt level.
A new and vulnerable group of debtors created entirely as a result of the Government's policy are the 15,000 pensioners who have taken on home income bonds. One of the principal brokers of such bonds was the West Bromwich building society. They were sold in the atmosphere of euphoria that followed the 1988 Budget, when the banks were infected with the general mood of optimism. I believe that many of the bonds are fraudulent.
A typical example is a lady in my constituency. Her home was worth £47,000, and she took out a bond that was described to her as a high-interest bond. What she was not told was that it was a high-risk bond, and that the sum was on loan. That happened only two years ago. The lady

1037
was in her early 60s when she took out the bond. If the debt continues until the year 2015, she will owe the building society £1·5 million. I believe that that is a fraud. Two years into the bond, that lady now finds that the value of her property has fallen from £47,000 to £40,000, and that her debt has increased to £35,000.
People who have been prudent all their lives, and have bought their own homes, have been offered such deals and have suddenly been faced with the dreadful prospect of homelessness and all that goes with it—for their local councils have no houses to put them in. The Government were responsible for the sudden boom in house prices. Their policies were responsible for the following loss in confidence. Conservatives have repeated their parrot cry tonight—it amounts to a mantra—that a Labour Government would lead to high taxation. It is one of the many myths that they put about. [Interruption.] Let me remind the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame. E. Kellett-Bowman) who is making noises over there and who I am sure will be happy to intervene—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I merely said that I do not think that people should risk it.
Mr. Flynn: Perhaps they should not have risked a Tory Government. It is because of what has happened under the Conservative Government—I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Lady if she can deny it—that we have the highest taxes that we have ever experienced.
The arithmetic stares us in the face. In 1979, total tax under Labour amounted to 34·25 per cent. It has now risen to 37 per cent. The Conservative party is the party of high taxes. What the Government have done, however, is to shift tax from the more visible area—income tax—and put it on to value added tax and national insurance, where the burden is less obvious. People are therefore less aware of the tax burden that has been imposed on them.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman does not refer to what the Government did as a result of their tax policy. When we reduced the 98 per cent. tax rate that had prevailed under Labour, we encouraged energetic people to return to this country from abroad. Therefore, we increased the tax yield from a much lower rate of tax. If the Labour party were to get in, people would immediately flee this country and a lot of effort would be put into evading tax instead of into productive employment. We have levied tax from a vastly increased number of high earners. That has led to more money being put into the national health service, education and pensions. That is what we have done with the increased tax yield from high earners.
Mr. Flynn: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but that is a different point. The Conservative party is the party of high taxes. They have increased national insurance from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent. and they have increased VAT from 8 per cent. under Labour to 17·5 per cent. Those are penal tax increases.
In a few weeks' time, the Labour Government will introduce fair national insurance rates. If a person is on an average wage of £13,000 to £15,000, he or she pays 9 per cent. in national insurance. If somebody is earning £76,000 —I understand that that is the Prime Minister's salary—he or she pays 3 per cent. If somebody is earning a salary equivalent to that of the editor of the Daily Express, which I understand is about £200,000, he or she pays less than 1
1038
per cent. It is inequitable that the national insurance burden should fall most heavily on those on average or just below average wages. The next Labour Government will ensure that that tax burden is shared fairly and more evenly.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into account the fact that the recent pay settlement for teachers means that 150,000 teachers will have to pay an additional 9 per cent. in national insurance contributions? Is that not most inequitable? It will lead to a great many people deciding not to enter the teaching profession. Nurses, hospital workers and policemen will also be caught by the additional 9 per cent. national insurance contribution which forms part of the Labour party's policy. It is the only part of their policy of which we are absolutely certain.
Mr. Flynn: Once again, the hon. Lady repeats the mythology that is printed in the tabloid press. That is the tabloid version of what the Labour party will do. As for what has been referred to as tax on unearned income of £30,000, again there will be a levelling up. The tax system is unfair and inequitable. Does the hon. Lady believe that we should maintain a system that places the highest tax burden on the lowest earners? I am sure that she does not believe that we should.
Reference has been made to business failures. One of the saddest sights during the recession has been the number of companies going into liquidation. Inflation, the obvious reason, is not the main cause of companies going into liquidation. It is indefensible that the Government have failed to control the main cause of business failures in my constituency and many other parts of the country. I refer to the insolvency laws and the Government's failure to control those parasites in business who make a habit of going into liquidation.
I give as an example a company owned by Mr. Brian Walker in my constituency. Nine of his companies went into liquidation. Six of his factories caught fire. That gentleman has built up debts amounting to more than £1 million, but he would say that he has no debts at all: that only those companies had debts. As the debts are corporate, not personal, debts he can carry on and not be declared insolvent or be disqualified from carrying on a business. What both he and many other people do is form a company and run up huge liabilities. They then unload the assets of those companies into a lifeboat company, after which those companies are put into receivership. They then leave their debts behind them.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to call the hon. Gentleman to order once again and remind him that he ought to look at the substantive motion and the amendment. I am not hearing very much about inflation from him at the moment. Perhaps he will come back to that.
Mr. Flynn: The subject of bankruptcies has been raised during the debate and—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It may well have been raised, but not while I have been in the Chair. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not challenging my ruling on this matter.
Mr. Flynn: I would not dream of doing such a thing, but I am afraid that we have been the victim of the average chairmanship throughout most of the debate and I now realise that—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I insist that the hon. Gentleman should now keep his remarks either to the amendment or to the substantive motion.
Mr. Flynn: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The arguments about the rate of inflation advanced by those who sit on the Treasury Bench show a certain loss of memory. The speech of the hon. Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans) was laced with stories gleaned, it appears, from Christmas crackers, which led to hysterical laughter from his hon. Friends. He did a pantomime turn on interest rates and the levels of inflation. It is right to point out to Conservative Members that there was a time, painful though it may be for them to remember it, when inflation rose to 22 per cent. under this Government. That was in May 1980. I see that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is looking at me in astonishment. That was no joke. The rate of inflation was stoked up by the Government. Contrary to the promises that the Conservative party made in its election literature not to increase VAT, as soon as it got into power, it stoked up inflation by 4 percentage points.
The second boom, which led to another bust, was stoked up in 1988 by the totally irresponsible Budget of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the previous Chancellor. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that he wanted credit for all that the Government have done. Perhaps in the reply to the debate the Government will tell us how much credit they claim for the position that we are in.
I gave them a model to work on. It was from a man greatly revered in the House by those on the Government Front Bench when they were all "Yes ma'am, no ma'am" Ministers and Sir Alan Walters was an adviser to the previous Prime Minister. His assessment was that the world recession was 30 per cent. to blame, as one would accept. It is more difficult for Britain to get out of recession because of the position in the rest of the world. No reasonable person would pretend that that was not the case. Sir Alan Walters said that the Government were mainly responsible for the recession. He apportioned the responsibility at 70 per cent. to the Government's mismanagement of the economy and 30 per cent. to the world recession.
I do not know whether those on the Treasury Bench wish to be more ambitious and claim even more credit for it, but it would be nice to know how they apportion blame in the argument about black and white—world recession and British recession. I know of no commentator who does not agree that the Government's policies are responsible. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) once criticised the right hon. Member for Blaby as the man who had got us into this mess. That was recorded in an early—day motion. If it is understood that the problems are the result of the actions and the unfortunate Budget of the right hon. Member for Blaby, why on earth do not Conservative Members recognise that?
We are told that unemployment is a price worth paying. That is nonsense. Even in the Government's fiddled figures there is enormous unemployment. For example, one lady works as a cleaner in the Palace of Westminster in the early
1040
morning, at St. Thomas's hospital in the afternoon and occasionally in the evening in a hotel bar. She is one person receiving three low wages. According to Government figures, she is three people, because they count her three times in the employment figures. Again, the hon. Member for Canterbury looks astonished, but that is right. That is part of the mythology of the Government's figures. We have heard in the debate that there are more people in work than ever before. That is nonsense. There are more people in the job count, because many people are counted several times.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent made a telling speech. I shall end by reminding the House of what he said, because it was apposite. He quoted the words of Pope. We will be meeting in the House in a few months' time with many absentees from the Government Benches. My right hon. Friend said that we might well feel that the spirits glide here
"And haunt the places where their honour died."
The motion is one without honour.
8.43 pm
Mr. Conal Gregory: I wish to address the important subject of inflation from the historical perspective, its current relevance and in the context of the family and employment in York.
In the historical context, under the last Labour Government the average rate of inflation was 15.5 per cent. Sadly, as I think all economists, even socialist ones, would admit, inflation rose in 1975 to a peak of 26.9 per cent. I trust that that will go down in the history books and that we shall not see it happen again, even as a footnote. It was a real warning to the country.
The underlying rate of inflation in December was the lowest since 1969. Only a month ago, in January, the inflation rate was 4.1 per cent. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary said earlier, that is below the average for the European Community and for the OECD. Those welcome figures have been achieved against opposition by the Labour party and by the Liberals throughout. Every anti—inflationary measure taken by the Government has been opposed.
Inflation is not a significant part of current socialist philosophy. I followed with interest the party conference of the socialists in 1991. In the major speeches made on that occasion by the Leader of the Opposition, I could find no reference to inflation. That shows the interest of the socialists in inflation.
Rather than talk in the abstract, I should like to deal with how inflation affects one part of the economy. In that context, I shall take my constituency of York. Low inflation benefits the elderly, who were the subject of my maiden speech. The savings of the elderly now count for something, but they were eroded in times of high inflation. Those on fixed incomes, often forgotten by political parties, now find that their incomes count for something.
Mortgage payers, about whom we are concerned constantly, are purchasing their homes but there was a period of hyper-inflation—at over 26 per cent. under Labour—when it made no sense for people to take on that long—term commitment for 20 or 25 years. The Government, who have stood firm on the right of tenants to buy council accommodation, know that it makes sense for people to be able to develop that nest—egg and pass it on to future generations.

1041
As regards exporters and their employees, the only opportunity for big international exporters such as Nestle, Rowntree, Terry, and British Rail Engineering Ltd. to develop a sound national base is to look further afield for markets, not just in Europe but worldwide. Those markets will be eroded if we have hyper-inflation at home. If we have low inflation, companies will not have to increase prices three or four times a year, with the consequent: high prices that have bedevilled us.
Employment has not been explored adequately in the debate. One praiseworthy aspect of low inflation is the numbers who have moved into employment. Since the last election, unemployment in York has been reduced by 24 per cent.
The fastest growth area of the economy, not only nationally but in York, is tourism. Because people have more money in their pockets as a result of low inflation, that disposable income can be spent on tourism.
Finally, employment in York has benefited from construction. When there is low inflation, it is worth while for companies to extend their properties, as has happened with General Accident, whose premises are close to the River Ouse. Because the company has additional responsibilities and has taken on additional employees, it has had to extend its building.
I contrast that good record with what would happen under Labour. Higher inflation is a concomitant of socialism and would come about through the artificial minimum wage. A number of economists have said—I believe that they are accurate—that it would raise prices by 3·5 per cent. over three years. Higher inflation would also be caused by the social charter. That is Euro-speak and Euro-engineering. The training levy proposed by the Labour party would add significantly to inflation. Higher state borrowing would require private companies such as those I have mentioned as well as those in the state sector to increase inflation. Higher interest rates would result.
I must draw to the House's attention the unrealistic hopes of the public sector. The Association of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and the union that used to be known as the National Union of Railwaymen, both of which are well represented on the Opposition Benches, have expectations way beyond the level that could be paid for by British Rail or by the users of British Rail. Those artificial expectations would be raised under a socialist Government.
Also, the red tape, especially in employment matters, caused by the Opposition's proposals would strangle business and would increase costs. The black economy would also be encouraged. People would think that there was little point paying one's full taxes if there was high inflation. The black economy would rise to monumental proportions.
I shall try to be as charitable as I can, but the socialists believe that there should be a wider public sector, and that through that there would be a larger economy. In fact, it would simply mean that costs would rise artificially and excessive spending would lead to increased inflation.
In contrast, the Conservatives have safeguarded public services. For example, from 1964 to 1970, investment in the railways fell by 57 per cent. in real terms under a Labour Government. It rose by 48 per cent. under the Conservatives from 1970 to 1974. It rose by only 13 per cent. under Labour from 1974 to 1979, and it has increased
1042
by a staggering 55 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Therefore, we can have low inflation at the same time as good services.
If the Labour party is to safeguard the economy by borrowing, it would have to sell gilt-edged securities at a high level. That would raise inflation. It would also increase taxation. I hope to hear from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman that the Opposition's proposals would mean raising the basic rate of tax by 10p or 15p, abolishing the ceiling on national insurance, raising the top rate of income tax back to 50p in the pound and reducing the value of many tax reliefs and allowances, as well as imposing a swingeing 9 per cent. surcharge on savers. The Labour party believes that high wages would restore living standards. In fact, they would lead to higher prices—
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry that I have not had the pleasure of listening to all the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I am struck by his remark about a swingeing 9 per cent. surcharge on savers. I am sure that he will be aware that what we propose is a 9 per cent. charge on investment income above £3,000 and on investments per person at well over £30,000. I am sure that he was a Member of the House when, in 1988, the Government withdrew all help with housing costs from those with capital of £8,000. Today, help with housing costs is lost to those with capital of £3,000 per unit—that could be a couple. In other words, the hon. Gentleman was a Member of the House when the Government really penalised small savers, who have to be those on the lowest incomes or they would not be eligible for consideration in these matters. So we do not need any lectures about penalising savers from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Gregory: I am delighted that the hon. Lady has confirmed that there would be a tax of that nature on savers. She sidestepped the important point that high inflation under Labour eroded the value of people's savings by one third. I would not want to face the electorate of Derby, let alone York, with that appalling track record.
I should like to pursue this further, but time does not permit me. The important point is that Labour would continue to be the party of high inflation, which would affect the interests of the public sector and the vast majority of employers and employees. The defeat of inflation continues to be the core of the Government's economic policy, and in that way we shall ensure a sound and prosperous Britain.
8.55 pm
Mr. Thomas Graham: Some time ago, I asked Ministers to tell us the price of certain basic foods, and none of them could do so. Can the Minister tell me the price of a pint of milk, a loaf of bread, a tin of beans or a 3 lb bag of potatoes? I should be delighted if he could do so. If he cannot, I must tell him that pensioners, the unemployed and everyone in the country has to purchase those goods to survive. If the Government do not know their cost, they should not be sitting here hypocritically debating inflation.
The Government's attitude to inflation worries me. Their methods of driving down inflation have put 3 million people on the dole. Not long ago, I spoke to a young unemployed man with a family of three. I asked him what was the most important consideration to him. He said,

1043
"Obviously, Tommy, taking care of my family, ensuring that we can purchase our groceries, pay for heating and children's clothing and ensuring that our children go to school and are educated." Today that man needs a job. The Government are concentrating on low inflation, but they have thrown millions on the dole.
Inflation is important, but the right to a wage is even more important. I am convinced that the young family to whom I spoke would have liked to earn an average wage, even if it meant a 10 per cent. increase in inflation. I hope that the Minister understands that the right to work is an important part of the fabric of life in Britain. The Government have been so blinded by inflation that they do not see the realities of life. Their policies have driven people into the most abject poverty imaginable to mankind. Britain is supposed to be a high—technology country, but thousands of companies in Strathclyde have gone to the wall. Manufacturing industry has been decimated. In the Strathclyde regional council area alone, 166,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost—more than half its manufacturing base.
Those are mind-boggling figures, yet the Government, who tell us that they are concerned about inflation, are allowing our manufacturing base to go to the wall. If those manufacturing companies were kept open and their workers employed, perhaps we could have zero inflation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) that it is madness to go for zero inflation. The Government know what I mean by that, so I shall not spell it out.
For the past 10 years, the Tory Government have promised miracle after miracle. The only miracle is that they are still in office. Unemployment is 2.6 million—9.2 per cent. of the work force. Who do we blame when nearly 10 per cent. of our modern society's work force are unemployed instead of making this country a good and fit place to live? Who can believe that 9 per cent. of the work force are unemployed when our schools are falling apart, when there are pot holes in our roads and when hospitals are collapsing? We need regeneration to improve the fabric of our society. We need restructuring—now. After 13 years—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must call the hon. Gentleman to order. I refer him to the amendment and the motion, which deal with inflation. If he referred to inflation from time to time, he would keep himself in good order.
Mr. Graham: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am saying that although the Government are obsessed with inflation they are not tackling its root causes. They should ensure that Britain has better infrastructure and a manufacturing base.
I am sure that your house, Madam Deputy Speaker, is nicely furnished. Before furnishing a house, one must decorate the walls and ensure that the floor is secure, that there is water in the taps and that there is a bathroom to flush the waste away. What I am saying to the Government is that they do not have a bathroom to flush the waste away. There is no water to drink for refreshment and no electric current to get the nation going again.
The economy contracted by 2·5 per cent. in 1991—the worst calendar year since the depression of the 1930s. My
1044
mother was unfortunate enough to be a young person in that depression in Scotland, but she remembers very well that when someone took ill the people in the close gathered up sixpences to pay the doctor, who came along and did the business. That was how society behaved in the depression of the 1930s.
The Government's drive towards private medicine is preventing many people from getting proper treatment, yet the Government think that inflation is the main problem. What they are doing to the country is savage. Manufacturing investment in 1991 was down 14 per cent. Britain is the only EC country where manufacturing investment is lower than in 1979. The sum of £30 billion in manufacturing investment has been lost because the Government have failed to make such investment at the same rate as Labour. Investment in the whole economy is down 11 per cent. In 1989, the Government spent 0·52 per cent. of the national wealth on civil research and development, compared with 0·92 per cent. in Germany, 0.86 per cent. in France and 0·66 per cent. in Italy. Since 1979, revenue from North sea oil has amounted to more than £100 billion.
Those figures are an indictment of the Government. They have squandered the revenue from North sea oil, which has been dug out in the most savage weather conditions by workers who have seen their compatriots thrown on to the dole. That revenue should have been spent on education, health, training and industry to get everyone back to work.
I ask the Minister to please stop squandering and privatising the nation's wealth. The public built the companies that the Government have given to their friends in the City. The general election will not be long. The time has come when the people of Great Britain want to take back what rightfully belongs to them, not to the Government's rich friends. We should be looking after people who are in need, in hospital and on the dole, and people who are unemployed and handicapped. The Minister should hang his head in shame. I have told him that until I am sick and tired—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard enough. If the hon. Gentleman will relate his comments to inflation, I shall listen. If not, he must resume his seat.
Mr. Graham: I have related my remarks to inflation. The Government have mismanaged the economy, inflation and every part of our society. I am delighted that it is not long until the general election when we can show them what is what.
9.5 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Not only are the Conservatives absolutely useless in Government but it is pathetically clear that they are not shaping up as very much of a parliamentary Opposition. They are struggling to get the hang of holding Supply days. They choose the wrong topics and the wrong decade. Government business managers have recently held Tory Supply days on taxation, privatisation, industrial relations, and now inflation. In his excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said that that was merely an election stunt but, having considered the topics that they have chosen to

1045
debate on their four Supply days, it is clear that they are getting ready to fight the 1979 election rather than the one that is coming in a few weeks.
Do the Government want to debate the recession? We could talk about the longest and deepest recession for 50 years. Do they want to debate unemployment? We have experienced the highest rise in unemployment since records began. Do they want to talk about record mortgage repossessions, business closures, the lack of economic growth or rising crime? No, the Conservatives do not want to discuss those issues. Their choices for debate are tangential and even when discussing the topics that they have singled out for our attention, they spend most of their time attacking a fictional version of the previous Labour Government's record or an invented and highly speculative version of what they allege will be the next Labour Government's record.
Before dealing with current affairs, I must respond to the case made by Conservative hon. Members against the previous Labour Government. I have sat through most of this debate. Has anyone heard any Conservative hon. Member mention, let alone praise, Mr. Anthony Barber? My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) remembers Lord Barber, the Tory Chancellor, whose monetary policies in 1972 and 1973 stoked up inflation for the incoming Labour Government. That incoming Labour Government inherited inflationary pressures in the economy from the Barber regime and then had to tackle the quadrupling of world oil prices.
The Labour Government cannot be blamed for Anthony Barber or for the quadrupling of world oil prices. The 1974–79 Labour Government deserve credit for getting inflation down to below the average of the Twelve in the European Community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) said, they did not have the benefits that North sea oil brought to the Conservatives in the 1980s, yet Labour never had a manufacturing deficit. The Conservatives have had one every year since 1983.
Labour ran a higher annual growth rate of 2 per cent. compared with 1·75 per cent. under the successor Tory regime. Mortgage rates under Labour averaged 10·75 per cent. compared with the 1979–92 Tory average of 12·65 per cent., yet the Conservatives claim to be the party of the home owner and pretend that we are not.
Under Labour our share of the world's major manufacturing exports rose from 8·5 per cent. in 1974 to 9·1 per cent. in 1979. By 1984, the Conservatives had got that back down to 7.5 per cent. If investment in our nation's manufacturing base had continued at the same rate of growth as under the Labour Government an extra £30 billion would be invested in manufacturing industry in Britain today.
Instead, it is pitiful that manufacturing investment today is lower than when the Conservatives came to office. We should remember that all this took place under a Labour Government committed as a matter of policy to bearing down on unemployment. In 1979, Saatchi and Saatchi hired actors to pretend to be unemployed workers in a poster campaign with the slogan "Labour isn't working". There is no need to hire actors now. The Employment Gazette shows that—without exception—for every single year the Conservatives have been in office the annual average percentage rate of the work force unemployed has been higher than it was under the last Labour Government.
1046
In 1979 the Tory election slogan implied that the Conservatives wished to reduce unemployment. What they have actually done is to maintain it at considerably higher levels every year for the past 13 years. Truly is it said that "Unemployment is nature's way of telling you that you voted Conservative"—
Sir Gerrard Neale: If what the hon. Gentleman says about the Labour Government at that time is correct, perhaps that would explain why there was a sterling crisis under that Government which forced them to devalue. Does the hon. Gentleman put it down to coincidence that both the Labour Governments before the one under discussion had sterling crises and had to devalue?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is trying to rewrite the history of the last Labour Government. Conservative Members always try to depict that period as a grim disaster. It was nothing of the sort. There was much to praise in the last Labour Government's programme, especially given the problems with which they had to deal. The two major problems were inflation, which had been stoked up by the previous Conservative Government led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and Chancellor Barber; and the quadrupling of world oil prices. How that Government conducted themselves must be seen in that context.
Mr. Radice: Is it not also true that since 1979 the pound has considerably depreciated against the dollar, the yen and the mark?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend, who made an excellent contribution to the debate, hits on a good point. Ministers do not come to the House and explain their depreciations of the currency. I recall the Prime Minister saying that the Government had no higher duty than to maintain the value of the currency; he did not go on to explain why he has not done that.
Mr. Maples: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House about the exchange rates. The value of the pound against an average basket of foreign currencies is the same now in real terms as it has been for the past 12 years.
Mr. Brown: The Minister asserts that having first carefully picked his basket of currencies—without referring to the dollar, the yen or the mark, which would have constituted a more relevant comparison.
When discussing anything that has happened since 1979 it is official Government policy to blame someone else for the shortcomings of the past 13 years, but I did think it a little disloyal of the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House last week and to blame the rest of the world—in a much better speech than the Prime Minister would have made in similar circumstances. I hasten to add that I make no such charge against the Chief Secretary.
In the 1979 election manifesto, the Conservative party included a section sternly headed, "The control of inflation". It said:
"To master inflation, proper monetary discipline is essential, with publicly stated targets for the rate of growth of the money supply. At the same time, a gradual reduction in the size of the Government's borrowing requirement is also vital."
The Conservatives, we note, did not mention a gradual reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement being vital over the cycle.

1047
To the Conservative party led by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), a gradual decline in the PSBR was vital—full stop. History, alas, does not record whether the present Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer were dissenting voices in those days, but I suspect that they were not. I will lay odds—which would have been attractive to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) who spoke earlier—that the present Chancellor never had the nerve to say to the right hon. Member for Finchley what he said in Treasury Questions last November. When asked how he would pay for borrowing, he said:
"We shall pay for borrowing by borrowing—that is the normal way in which one pays for it."—[Official Report, 28 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 1062.]
I must try that out on my bank manager. I do not think that it will work with him and I am certain that it would not have worked with the previous Prime Minister. It shows how times have changed. We shall find out in a couple of weeks how that line is working for the present Prime Minister.
In its 1979 election manifesto, the Conservative party also said:
"The state takes too much of the nation's income; its share must be steadily reduced. When it spends and borrows too much, taxes, interest rates, prices and unemployment rise so that in the long run there is less wealth with which to improve our standard of living and our social services."
The Conservative party then went on to do the opposite. It increased, not reduced, the share of the nation's income which the state takes, and it has maintained that increase for every year since 1981. By the summer of 1980, the Conservative Government had British inflation running at 21 per cent. The comparable average for the 12 EC countries was 14 per cent. Unemployment was high and rising. The Conservatives' response was to bring about the worst recession since the second world war.
In describing the 1st century Roman conquest of northern Britain, Tacitus said:
"They created a desert and called it stability."
The Conservative approach to north Britain's industrial base has been similar. When Conservatives say, "Oh, the north has not been so much affected by our latest recession", they forget that the north has not yet recovered from the earlier one. The point was effectively underscored by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner).
By 1983, the Conservatives were telling us in their manifesto, under the heading, "Success against inflation", that
"We shall maintain firm control of public spending and borrowing. If Government borrows too much, interest rates rise, and so do mortgage payments."
By 1987, in "We the People"—the right hon. Member for Finchley was using the royal "we" even then—the language had become far more robust. It was even slightly hysterical. The manifesto said:
"Inflation is an evil. As with all cancers, it needs to be completely eradicated. To this end, we shall endeavour to achieve zero inflation."
Oh yes? In view of the Conservatives' previous methods, the more frightening question is "How?". The manifesto continued:
"We shall maintain strict control of public expenditure and borrowing."
1048
There is also a warning against
"extravagant monetary and fiscal policies which would produce hyper—inflation and economic chaos."
I presume that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have read that.
On the 1988 Budget and its aftermath, I will read to the House an extract from a candid article in an American magazine called International Economic Insights. There are more economic insights in the article than we ever get from the Government in the House of Commons. The article, referring to the 1988 boom and its aftermath, says:
"In the latter stages of the boom, however, it was becoming clear that macroeconomic discipline …was being threatened by one of the government's microeconomic reforms: deregulation of the financial sector."
This is very honest stuff. The article continues:
"There was an explosion in bank lending in the late 1980s which sent broad money growth soaring into the high teens. That unleashed a boom in asset prices, particularly houses, which generated an unprecedented and unsustainable surge in consumer spending. Government macroeconomic policy then turned to the task of curbing the inflationary consequences of that boom. The main policy instrument was high interest rates"—
as we all know. The article then says:
"Clearly, the reduction in inflation has not been painless." The people who said that the reduction had not been painless might have thought of that before they allowed it to be stoked up.
The article goes on to state:
"we have had to forgo some output as a price for eliminating its inflationary consequences."
Quite. The author, our own Chancellor of the Exchequer, clearly accepts on the Government's behalf both the blame for the problem and the responsibility for the chosen remedy. In order to bear down on inflation, the Conservatives have engineered in this country the worst recession since the 1930s. They do not know when it will end. Last summer, the Prime Minister told us that
"Britain's position is strengthening month by month."
It was not. The Chancellor, last May, said:
"Things are starting to go rather well for the economy."
They were not. Later, the Chancellor told us that
"The green shoots of economic spring are appearing once again."
That is a poetic image. It turned out to be not so much the
"Darling Buds of May" as the "darling buds of maybe".
The reason that the green shoots of economic spring are not coming through is, of course, that both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been talking to the plants. The Chancellor clearly repeats over and again that
"Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying."
The Prime Minister drones on at the poor little green shoots of economic spring, saying:
"Inflation must go. Ending it cannot be painless. The harsh truth is that if a policy isn't hurting, it isn't working."
No doubt he was half remembering something that his mother told him as a child. In the circumstances, is it surprising that the green shoots of economic spring are not coming out of the ground? They want to be spoken to in a much more soothing manner, probably in a lilting Edinburgh accent.
In 1987, the Conservatives claimed their objective to be zero inflation, yet in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 they could not even get inflation down to the EC Twelve average—something that the Labour Government managed to do in their last full year in office. That is not surprising, as, although they claim to be bearing down on

1049
inflation, in a number of key areas the Conservatives were actually stoking it up. As well as VAT increases, to which successive Conservative Governments seem to be addicted, the poll tax made its unique contribution to our inflation rate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has pointed out, the Conservatives have also been at it with the public utilities. If one takes the cumulative change in the retail prices index from 1979 to 1981, one finds to one's surprise that the cumulative change is not zero but 135.4 per cent. That is from the party that has inflation as its priority. If one then takes certain public utilities and compares the inflation rate from 1979 to 1991 with the all-items rate—135·4 per cent., let me remind the House—one finds that electricity prices have gone up by 149·1 per cent., that gas prices have gone up by 167·7 per cent., and that telephone charges have gone up by 142–2 per cent., increases that were front-loaded in 1980 and 1981, with percentage increases of 28·2 per cent. and 23·5 per cent. respectively. Perhaps most obscenely of all, water charges have gone up by 265·3 per cent. from 1979 to 1991.
Why should all those items have price rises substantially ahead of the rate of inflation? What possible explanation could one seek? The explanation is pretty obvious. The Government intended to sell off those industries and ensure that the prices rose so that they could get a successful sale. Who pays the price for that successful sale? It is the consumer with Conservative-inspired inflation.
In the debate, Conservative Members asked what Labour would do. They always ask that when they can think of nothing to say. They do not listen or bother to follow the debate. They just say, "Well, what would Labour do?" If they had bothered to read the Labour amendment to the motion, they would see that we call on the Government
"to introduce measures which include support for investment in manufacturing industry and in training, since without such measures inflationary pressures will simply re-emerge."
I am certain that that would be the case.
That policy, combined with our commitment to the exchange rate mechanism, seems to me a sufficiently substantial anti-inflationary policy. Let no one, absolutely no one on the Conservative Benches, try to peddle the misleading statement that the Labour party is not committed to playing its full part within the workings of the ERM and ensuring that it bears down on inflation. We were committed to the ERM well before it became fashionable on the other side of the House. We understand the disciplines that are involved.
However, it is not necessary to spell out from this Front Bench precisely which mechanism at which point in time a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer would need to use in order to preserve our position. A series of options would be open to a Labour Chancellor, just as a series of options is open to a Conservative Chancellor. Conservative Members know that and know that we shall have a full range of options open to us just as they have a full range of options before them.
In drawing her excellent speech to a conclusion, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) introduced a further quotation. I should like to refer to it again. But before I do so, hon. Members on both sides of
1050
the House will be interested to hear the forecast from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research which was released earlier this evening. It predicts that
"with a continuation of Tory policies unemployment will continue to rise throughout 1992 and 1993. Total investment will fall in 1992 by a further 1·3 per cent. After a fall of 15 per cent. in 1991, manufacturing investment will fall by another 4·9 per cent. in 1992 and that growth will be just 1·3 per cent. in 1992, well down on Norman Lamont's forecasts last November."
Those are the views of an independent institute. There is no recovery here. Indeed, the review comments:
"There is little tangible evidence of any recovery in activity in the early weeks of this year."
I will treat the House again to the quotation that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South used earlier.
"If we'd known how it would turn out, we wouldn't have done anything different."
Those are not General Custer's last words. They are the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining why the recovery did not come earlier, and, as we now learn, looks as if it will come substantially later, if at all, under the present regime. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South made the point that if we have to go through all this again, it is highly unlikely that our fellow citizens will vote to do so. I urge them not to.
9.28 pm
The Economic Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): The debate has been characterised by a variety of speeches. It is interesting that, although the opening and closing speeches for the Opposition had some interesting characteristics, and the last one in particular was amusing, neither made any effort to grapple with the issue of inflation or to state what the Labour party's policies would be.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) and for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale) reminded us of the serious dangers of inflation to business. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) reminded us of the devastating effect that inflation can have on savings. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Sir I. Stewart) pointed out clearly the weaknesses in the Opposition's policy. We were encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) to go for zero inflation. I am afraid that I missed the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), but I am told by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that they were worth reading, and I shall certainly read them.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He is pretty tough on inflation—as tough as us, if not tougher. His intervention on the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was interesting because she failed to respond to his invitation to say that Labour is serious about inflation.
My hon. Friends and I find that the appalling thing about this debate is having to take lectures on inflation from the Labour party. If one wants to know what will happen in the future it is sometimes interesting to look into the history books. I think that one Labour hero said, "There's no need to look into a crystal ball when you can read the book." The book does not read very well. During the period of the Labour Government, the average inflation rate in Britain was 15·5 per cent. and the average for the European Community was 12 per cent. During the

1051
period of this Government, the average inflation rate in Britain has been 7·2 per cent., which has been the average for the European Community.
Mr. Allen McKay: The effect also matters.
Mr. Maples: Inflation is a bad thing. That may surprise the hon. Gentleman, but it is.
Under Labour, the highest rate of inflation was 26·9 per cent. and the lowest was 7·6 per cent. Under the Government, the average has been 7·2 per cent. Our average rate is lower than Labour's lowest rate.
During that time it is not surprising that M0 was growing at 12 per cent. a year, and public spending was out of control. That resulted in a letter that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was forced to write to the International Monetary Fund—an interesting document for students of history. I doubt whether a British Chancellor has ever been forced to sign a more humiliating document than the letter that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) had to write on 15 December 1976, asking the IMF for a standby agreement. Such agreements are usually given by the IMF to bankrupt Latin American countries. He had to apply for a substantial loan and, in the last paragraph of that letter, in effect he had to hand over the control of British economic policy to the president of the IMF.
We do not have much to learn from the Labour party about inflation, but the interesting question is: what has it learnt? The Labour party has had 13 years in which to reflect and to repent. It seems to me that those years have not been spent usefully.
In "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change" in 1989, there is a short paragraph of about 20 lines on inflation. It does not make any effort to say how to deal with the problem, but it contains this amazing, mind-bending sentence:
"Inflation is in fact a complex phenomenon whose causes will vary from one situation to the next."
That is a facile cop-out because it does not say what one does to control inflation.
In 1990, the Labour party went further. In "Looking to the Future", the 1990 policy revision, there is a page on inflation. Again, there are no suggestions on how one would set about keeping it under control, but there is this amazing proposition:
"We propose to develop regular discussions between government, employers, trade unions and others about Britain's economic prospects".
Hon. Members: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Maples: That is not a policy for dealing with inflation. It sounds to me and to my hon. Friends very reminiscent of beer and sandwiches at No. 10. With the new model Labour Treasury team, I suspect that it would have to be shellfish and champagne.
In 1991, "Opportunity Britain" went a little further, as it contained a paragraph headed "Monetary discipline". It is only a heading, it does not say anything about monetary discipline and it dismisses the use of interest rates, calling instead for the use of credit controls.
The subject of credit controls is interesting. I do not know whether Opposition Members have studied the remarks of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr.
1052
Davies), who has the advantage over all of them of having been a Treasury Minister for a few years. In June 1989, he was reported as saying:
"The Labour Party idea that you should have credit controls is rubbish. There is no way you can control credit except by controlling the price of credit, and the price of credit is Bank Rates."
A couple of weeks later, on 18 June, the Leader of the Opposition said on "Panorama" that we need credit controls. Obviously, he had not read or digested those remarks. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I can forgive him. He has a little difficulty when he is let out alone, and we understand that. Perhaps the more honest comment came from him in that famous "World at One" interview with James Naughtie—[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like it. We have the tape of that interview and it makes fascinating listening. When James Naughtie asked the right hon. Gentleman, "What would a Labour Government do to reduce inflation?", after having lost his temper and sworn a little he said, "To cut a long story short, we don't know." We know that he does not know, but it is a pity that some Labour spokesmen are not aware of that.
The debate about credit controls rumbled on. In October 1989, a few months after the remarks by the right hon. Member for Llanelli, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said in a Walden interview that a Labour Government would impose controls on mortgage lending specifically on people trading up. Of course he realised that if there had to be credit controls they would have to be on mortgage lending, which accounts for more than 80 per cent. of consumer borrowing. A week later the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that he strongly disagreed and that there was no way in which they would penalise a family who wished to buy a larger house. On that, as on so many matters, there is something of a muddle among Labour Front-Bench spokesmen.
We found especially interesting—this was brought out in the speech by the hon. Member for Derby, South—the fact that the key lever for controlling monetary policy and inflation is interest rates. It is the key lever used by all other members of the exchange rate mechanism, by the Bundesbank and by the Dutch and French central banks. It is also used by the Americans and the Japanese, but apparently we do not need to use it. We went through a ridiculous charade over interest rates and what has been christened Monklands law, which states that whatever interest rates are, they ought to be 1 per cent. lower. That was the case at varying interest rates last year.
The "World At One" is a dangerous programme for Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen because on that programme on 15 November last year the shadow Chancellor was asked by the presenter whether he would like the Government to make further cuts in interest rates. One would have thought that he would say 1 per cent. It had been 1 per cent. all year, so why should it be any different? However, the shadow Chancellor said:
"I would have to take advice about it".
Apparently, he did not need any advice when he was calling for a 1 per cent. cut every two weeks during 1991, but by October he needed advice about it. Perhaps it is good that humility has broken in, because Monklands law was never a sensible policy. The shadow Chancellor's

1053
attitude shows that Labour does not have a serious policy on inflation. It is not serious about interest rates and that shows that Labour is not serious about inflation.
The Labour party recently developed or found by accident a rather convenient fig leaf called the exchange rate mechanism. We are supposed to take seriously its commitment to the ERM, but it is rather difficult to take seriously a party that apparently cannot make up its mind about Europe. [Interruption.] Labour supported Britain's entry to the European Community in 1962, opposed it in 1964, supported it in 1966, opposed it in 1971, supported it in 1975, opposed it in 1983 and now Labour supports it again. Every single member of the shadow Cabinet who was in the House in 1972—I have the Division list here —opposed British entry to the Community in 1972 when the Bill on accession to the Community went through Parliament. The Division list contains the names of not only the shadow Chancellor but the Leader of the Opposition. In 1986—only five and a half years ago—14 members of the shadow Cabinet voted against the Single European Act. By chance, I have the Division list for that and among the names are those of the hon. Member for Derby, South and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Over the past five and the next 10 years the key to the development of the European Community is the Single European Act and 14 Labour Members, including the two proponents whom we are now supposed to take seriously, voted against it. The 1983 Labour manifesto on which they all ran for election or re-election stated:
"We will also open immediate negotiations with our European Community partners and introduce the necessary legislation to prepare for Britain's withdrawal within the lifetime of a Labour Government."
I have kept until last the words of the Leader of the Opposition. Apparently the keystone of the Opposition's policy on inflation is membership of the exchange rate mechanism. The attitude of leading Labour Members to the ERM and the European Community throws an interesting light on the question whether they can be taken seriously. As usual, the Leader of the Opposition is the somersaulter supreme on this issue. In 1975, in an article in Tribune, he said:
"Only the EEC in its political and economic dimensions is the robber of the real sovereignty of the people".
In 1983—he had not changed his mind during those eight years—he said:
"We want out of the Common Market."
In 1988, he had changed his mind. In The Independent on 4 February, he was quoted as saying these amazing words:
"I have never seen hostility towards the European Community in the Labour party".
Where had he been? Obviously, he had not been listening to his right hon. and hon. Friends. What is more, he obviously had not been listening to himself.
During the short space of five years, the Labour party has moved from outright opposition to the European Community to fawning acceptance of anything that comes from Brussels. From the way in which Labour Members behave, one would think that Mr. Delors had a large block vote at the Labour party conference. We are supposed to take seriously that Damascene conversion by two or three Labour Members—[Interruption.] I am getting enough laughs.
Let us look behind those few members of the Opposition Front Bench whose word we have on that matter. Last week, we had a debate on the economy Four
1054
of the eight Labour Back Benchers who spoke in that debate called for devaluation. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Opposition Front-Bench policy. In the debate on the autumn statement, 25 Labour Back Benchers tabled an amendment calling for full-blooded socialism. That is not even consistent with membership of the European Community, let alone the exchange rate mechanism.
What I and some of my hon. Friends wondered during that debate was how many more Labour Members thought the same and would have liked to sign that amendment. We suspect that it was the brave tip of a cowed and gutless iceberg—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is melting."] It is melting fast. The only reason why the Labour party decided to favour the ERM is that the party perceived differences of opinion within the Conservative party about it. When we shot that fox, Labour decided to favour economic and monetary union. Its policy has been driven by disingenuousness and opportunism.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: On the subject of disingenuousness and opportunism, I am sure that the Minister will recall that in the last three of the Conservative party's manifestos one of the key elements of its attack on inflation was its very tough strictures on borrowing. Is that still the case?
Mr. Maples: We shall continue to run a very responsible fiscal policy. We have always done so. I have just checked my copy of the Division list, only to find that the hon. Gentleman voted against the European Single Act. I thought that he might have been about to rise to tell us that we had been mistaken—
Mr. Brown rose—
Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity.
Labour's Treasury team has been investing a good many of its lunch hours in the City, trying to persuade people that Labour is now a reformed character and should be allowed out on parole. It would be interesting to hear what some of the City commentators have had to say about that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out that almost all of them thought that the advent of a Labour Government would bring an increase in interest rates. Some of them said that interest rates would go up, some said by 4 per cent., but none said that they would go down.
What about inflation? That is the subject of today's debate—[Interruption.] I am dealing with the Opposition's policy on inflation. I shall start with James Capel. Who had lunch at James Capel? Will nobody own up to that? James Capel estimates that under Labour, inflation typically would be about 2 per cent. higher. Goldman Sachs has predicted that inflation would be higher under a Labour Government. S. G. Warburg said:
"the biggest flaw in Labour's approach concerns the absence of a credible strategy for tackling inflation."
Mr. John Smith rose—
Mr. Maples: I am in the middle of a paragraph—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall do so in a minute. I am in the middle of a paragraph and I shall give way when I have finished it. UBS Phillips and Drew—
Mr. Smith rose—
Mr. Maples: I am dealing with the City. When I have finished, I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
UBS Phillips and Drew said that it was not yet convinced that the Labour party has successfully expelled its inflationary tendencies. I would be especially interested to know—and so should the Leader of the Opposition—who had lunch with UBS Phillips and Drew. Not only did they strike out on interest rates and inflation, they struck out pretty generally. The UBS Phillips and Drew briefing also said:
"It is not hard to ridicule this pot-pourri of supply-side socialism: that unmistakable whiff of failed 1960s policies; the National Investment Bank, surely destined to retrace the history of the National Enterprise Board, picking losers."
Labour talks a lot about investment, but the investment made by its members in lunch hours does not seem to have paid off.
Mrs. Beckett: Has the Minister seen UBS Phillips and Drew's most recent report, which talks about a second Labour Government consolidating their position after a second election victory?
Mr. Maples: That must have been written by someone else. I quote again:
"A pot-pourri of supply side socialism: that unmistakable whiff of failed 1960s policies".
I quoted only about six of the 22 comments that I have before me—none of which is favourable.
Labour has not only failed to convince the City—
Mr. John Smith: The Economic Secretary made a point of quoting Goldman Sachs, to which Conservative Members constantly refer. Did the hon. Gentleman read a day or two ago that the Government's given explanation for the recession—international factors—was described as eyewash by Goldman Sachs? If the Minister believes Goldman Sachs in one instance, why does he not believe it in another?
Mr. Maples: I do not believe anybody on everything, but Goldman Sachs' chief economic adviser has been a consistent supporter of Treasury policies throughout the past 18 months. Goldman Sachs says that, under Labour, interest rates and inflation would increase, and it does not make any very polite comments about Labour policies.
The Opposition are in disarray over several of their policies, but nowhere more so than in respect of their policies on spending and tax. In 1989, the Leader of the Opposition promised:
"At the time of the next General Election, we will set out the accurate costs of our manifesto proposals."
A few months later, the hon. Member for Derby, South said:
"We will begin the detailed costing of the manifesto at the end of next year"—
that is, 1990. We did not get it, and in September 1991, we were told by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham):
"Detailed spending pledges will not be included in Labour's manifesto".
That must be one of the first examples of an election promise being broken before the election has even taken place.
We have done the Opposition's sums for them. We make the cost of their proposal £35 billion—or did. I cannot remember any specific pledges being denied but if any have been, we have no difficulty, because new pledges
1056
are added all the time. I could ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary for confirmation, but I believe that the total now is £37 billion or £38 billion.
Under Beckett's law, the hon. Member for Derby, South says that those are not pledges but wishes and prayers. Let us examine a couple of them. In "Opportunity Britain", Labour states that it will increase overseas aid to 0·7 per cent. of GNP. That would cost £2·3 billion. The hon. Member for Derby, South says that is not a pledge, but in his speech to the Labour party conference last year the shadow Foreign Secretary confirmed that target, saying that that was a firm commitment, costed and clear. He pledged that a Labour Government would carry it out. Who are we to believe—the shadow Foreign Secretary or the hon. Member for Derby, South?
Mr. Smith rose—
Mr. Maples: I have one more question for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer. "Opportunity Britain" stated that Labour
"will increase the basic pension in line with prices or earnings, whichever is the higher".
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East confirmed that at Labour's party conference, when he said:
"Of course that Labour Government will restore the link between retirement pensions and earnings and prices— whichever is the higher."
Who are we to believe in that instance—the shadow Chief Secretary or her boss? The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East did worse. He produced a completely new spending pledge that was not even included in the £35 billion that I mentioned. On 30 December, he said on "World At One"—a dangerous programme for the right hon. and learned Gentleman:
"I would release the capital sums which local authorities have at their disposal".
There is up to £8 billion of those. I do not know whether we are talking about £2 billion, £3 billion or £8 billion. However much it is, it is public spending and it is public borrowing.
Mr. Smith rose—
Mr. Maples: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not even listening when I made my last point, and I have given way several times to Opposition Front Benchers.
I have discovered the secret. I have discovered why the Labour party has difficulties with its arithmetic. Into my hands has fallen an interesting document entitled "The Way to Win: Labour's Campaign Handbook for the 1990s". It provides guidance for Labour candidates, and it contains an interesting section headed "Counting the Votes". I want my right hon. and hon. Friends to listen to this: why Labour has difficulties will be made clear.
The document explains:
"You need to know how many votes you require to win."
That is pretty uncontentious, but it is a little more complicated than it sounds. The document continues:
"For example, Constituency A has 65,000 voters. If the general election turnout is 75 per cent., then the total voting will be 48,750. If only two parties stand, you need 50 per cent. + 1 to win—24,375."
If Labour candidates are thought by the Labour party not to be able to add up to 25,000, it is not surprising that the Opposition Front Bench cannot make it up to £35 billion.
Mr. John Smith: The Economic Secretary referred to expenditure on overseas aid. Will he make it clear,

1057
speaking on behalf of the Government, that the Government are reneging on their commitment to meet the United Nations target?
Mr. Maples: It is a long-term target, as we have made clear. [Interruption.] That is exactly the point. The shadow Foreign Secretary said that Labour would meet it in the lifetime of a Parliament: he said that a Labour Government would do it in five years. It is in a list of spending pledges.
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East intervened, because I am just coming to him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman represents the respectable face of the Labour party. He is not very consistent about the exchange rate mechanism or European monetary union; he does not have much of a policy on inflation. He ran on a 1983 manifesto. Nevertheless, he represents the respectable face of the Labour party. What we must ask ourselves is whether he represents anyone in the Labour party other than himself. From time to time, he represents his client down in Islwyn; but he certainly does not represent the parliamentary Labour party.
Recently, we have been entertained by a series of articles in the newspapers. They started in The Guardian —[HON. MEMBERS: "It is a Tory newspaper."] We are told that it is a Tory newspaper. We had the headline:
"Curious case of the Scot on the rocks".
We learn that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is
"not radical enough",
and
"less clever than he thinks".
We read
"Why the knives are coming out for John Smith",
and
"Why the claws are out for John Smith".
I have quoted from only four of the many newspaper articles that have appeared over the past 10 days.
I originally thought that all this was because Labour Back-Benchers were upset about raising people's taxes if they earned more than £390 a week, or about the idea that raising income tax helped the country to get out of the recession. Then I realised that I had been very naive. The truth was revealed to me in one of the newspaper articles, in which it was made clear that nothing of the sort was the case—that we were seeing a jockeying for position for when Labour lost the next election.
That was set out very succinctly in The Independent on Sunday—not, I think, a supporter of the Conservative party—which stated:
"More worrying for Labour is the most convincing theory, that last week's shenanigans constituted elaborate jockeying for the party leadership should Labour fail to become the government. Many within the party detect a pre-emptive strike to damp down Mr. Smith's chances of walking his way to the … leadership."
Not only is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not as clever as he thinks; he is not as popular as he thinks.
There are red lines on the carpet in the Chamber so that we cannot stick swords in each other's fronts. Perhaps we should arrange for a red line to be drawn behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to make sure that no one can stick a dagger in his back. I hope that it does not happen, but, if we were to find a dagger in his back, whose fingerprints would we find on it? Would they be those of one of the 25 signatories to the amendment to the autumn statement who want socialism, or would they be those of one of the 100-odd other hon. Members who would have
1058
liked to sign it but did not? Or would they, perhaps, be those of an acolyte of the Leader of the Opposition, tired of having his economics corrected all the time?
"Nor",
I read in The Independent on Sunday,
"is his relationship with Neil Kinnock close, the Labour leader realising that his Shadow Chancellor does not admire his grasp of economics."
That must be the understatement of the year. Whatever the truth may be about the conspiracy against the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he has been seriously wounded by it. He does not have the confidence of his own party, so how can he expect to have the confidence of the nation?
Let me now turn to the hon. Member for Derby, South, the junior partner in this Bearnaise sauce circuit around the City. She likes to pose as a paragon of fiscal virtue. I hope that this is not an indelicate subject to raise in the House, but this is a lady with a past—a very disreputable past. She used to be a socialist. That is no longer fashionable, so she denies it. She used to be very left wing. Ten years ago, she would have been the scourge of the policies that she now espouses. In the 1981 contest for the Labour party leadership, she supported the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] In 1980, this great supporter of the European Community wrote in Tribune about the European Community where she described it as
"This selfish, greedy, little clique of countries"
and declared:
"none of the arguments for staying in the European Community can be sustained."
That is the same hon. Member who now lets Mr. Delors write her scripts. She is standing on her head on most of the issues that—
Mrs. Beckett: A couple of things have happened in the meantime that the Minister appears not to have noticed. First, we had a referendum on the European Community which was won by those people who wished to remain in the Community. Secondly, in the 1983 election campaign, the Labour party put a specific option before the country—that we should not remain in the Community. That option was rejected. I am a democrat. I accept the decision of the country. It appears that the Conservative party voted for the European Community and for the Single European Act but that it now wishes that it had not done so.
Mr. Maples: What intellectual rigour, what consistency of principle that can be so easily undermined. I suspect that it is the sniff of office, not the 1983 election defeat, that has brought about the change.
The hon. Lady is also the originator of Beckett's law, which is in tatters. She says one thing; the shadow Cabinet does another. We have already seen a few of the contradictions. The hon. Lady has no credibility and, apparently, no authority within the shadow Cabinet. She has got a £35 billion millstone round her neck and it is going to sink her. After the election, when the Labour party is in opposition, her job will be to run the shadow Chancellor's campaign for leadership of the Labour party.
I do not intend to dwell on the position of the Leader of the Opposition. He has changed his mind not just about a couple of things but about everything that he ever believed in. He used to be a famous left-wing firebrand. He has changed his mind about nuclear disarmament, nationalisation, Europe and even the monarchy.
Mr. Graham: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Maples: No. I am not giving way to anybody else. There are only three minutes of the debate left.
It is difficult to take seriously anything that the Leader of the Opposition says. At the ad-men's bidding, he has given up the principles for which he went into politics and which he has held all his life. It shows through and is pretty shallow. The inflation record of the Labour party when in government was the worst in our history and the worst in the industrialised world. The Labour party has learnt nothing since then. It has no policy on inflation. It refuses to acknowledge that interest rates are the key to controlling inflation—in the words of the Labour party's own leader, when asked what Labour would do to control inflation, "We don't know."
The Labour party has had a sudden, opportunistic conversion to the exchange rate mechanism, but how can we believe its sincerity now when for years it castigated the very idea of Europe and when the whole shadow Cabinet voted against the Single European Act only five years ago? The Labour party has invested heavily in selling its new-found respectability to the City, only to have its policies comprehensively rubbished by City commentators. Labour would have had a massive public spending programme which inevitably would mean higher taxes. Beckett's law is in tatters, contradicted twice in a year by her own boss, the shadow Chancellor. If the shadow Chancellor does not have the confidence of his own parliamentary party, how can he expect to get the confidence of the country?
The Labour party is led by a man whose desperate thirst for office has led him to change his mind on everything he ever believed in, even the monarchy. He is the greatest imposter of them all. Labour has no policies on inflation and no credibility. It is running on the biggest false prospectus since the South Sea bubble and it will be rumbled by the electorate for its opportunism and insincerity.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 324.

Division No. 100]

[10 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Allen, Graham

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Anderson, Donald

Canavan, Dennis

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Armstrong, Hilary

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Clelland, David

Ashton, Joe

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cohen, Harry

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Barron, Kevin

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Battle, John

Corbett, Robin

Beckett, Margaret

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bell, Stuart

Cousins, Jim

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Crowther, Stan

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

Cryer, Bob

Benton, Joseph

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bidwell, Sydney

Cunningham, Dr John

Blair, Tony

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Boateng, Paul

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Boyes, Roland

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

Bradley, Keith

Dewar, Donald

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dixon, Don

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Dobson, Frank

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Callaghan, Jim

Eadie, Alexander

1060

Edwards, Huw

Marek, Dr John

Enright, Derek

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Fatchett, Derek

Maxton, John

Faulds, Andrew

Meacher, Michael

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Meale, Alan

Fisher, Mark

Michael, Alun

Flannery, Martin

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Flynn, Paul

Morgan, Rhodri

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morley, Elliot

Foster, Derek

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Foulkes, George

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Fraser, John

Mowlam, Marjorie

Fyfe, Maria

Mullin, Chris

Galloway, George

Murphy, Paul

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

O'Brien, William

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

O'Hara, Edward

Godman, Dr Norman A.

O'Neill, Martin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Parry, Robert

Gould, Bryan

Pendry, Tom

Graham, Thomas

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Prescott, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Primarolo, Dawn

Grocott, Bruce

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hain, Peter

Radice, Giles

Hardy, Peter

Randall, Stuart

Harman, Ms Harriet

Redmond, Martin

Haynes, Frank

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Robertson, George

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Rogers, Allan

Henderson, Doug

Rooney, Terence

Hinchliffe, David

Rowlands, Ted

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Ruddock, Joan

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hood, Jimmy

Sheerman, Barry

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Short, Clare

Hoyle, Doug

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

Ingram, Adam

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Janner, Greville

Soley, Clive

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Spearing, Nigel

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Steinberg, Gerry

Kilfoyle, Peter

Stott, Roger

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Strang, Gavin

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Lambie, David

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Lamond, James

Turner, Dennis

Leadbitter, Ted

Vaz, Keith

Lewis, Terry

Walley, Joan

Litherland, Robert

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Loyden, Eddie

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

McAllion, John

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

McAvoy, Thomas

Wilson, Brian

McCartney, Ian

Winnick, David

Macdonald, Calum A.

Wise, Mrs Audrey

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Worthington, Tony

McLeish, Henry

Wray, Jimmy

McMaster, Gordon

McNamara, Kevin

Tellers for the Ayes:

Madden, Max

Mr. Jack Thompson and

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mr. Eric Illsley.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Arbuthnot, James

Aitken, Jonathan

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Alexander, Richard

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Allason, Rupert

Aspinwall, Jack

Alton, David

Atkins, Robert

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Atkinson, David

Amess, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Amos, Alan

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

1061

Baldry, Tony

Fookes, Dame Janet

Batiste, Spencer

Forman, Nigel

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Beggs, Roy

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Beith, A. J.

Forth, Eric

Bellingham, Henry

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bellotti, David

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bendall, Vivian

Freeman, Roger

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

French, Douglas

Benyon, W.

Fry, Peter

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gale, Roger

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gardiner, Sir George

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Gill, Christopher

Body, Sir Richard

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Boswell, Tim

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bottomley, Peter

Gorst, John

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bowis, John

Gregory, Conal

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Grist, Ian

Brazier, Julian

Ground, Patrick

Bright, Graham

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hague, William

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

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Buck, Sir Antony

Hanley, Jeremy

Budgen, Nicholas

Hannam, Sir John

Burns, Simon

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

Burt, Alistair

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Butcher, John

Harris, David

Butterfill, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hawkins, Christopher

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Hayes, Jerry

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayward, Robert

Carr, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carrington, Matthew

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Cash, William

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Chapman, Sydney

Hill, James

Chope, Christopher

Hind, Kenneth

Churchill, Mr

Hordern, Sir Peter

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

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

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Howells, Geraint

Cormack, Patrick

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Couchman, James

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

Hunter, Andrew

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Irvine, Michael

Day, Stephen

Irving, Sir Charles

Devlin, Tim

Jack, Michael

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jackson, Robert

Dicks, Terry

Jessel, Toby

Dorrell, Stephen

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dover, Den

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dunn, Bob

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dykes, Hugh

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Eggar, Tim

Kennedy, Charles

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Kilfedder, James

Evennett, David

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Fallon, Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Farr, Sir John

Kirkwood, Archy

Favell, Tony

Knapman, Roger

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Knox, David

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

1062

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Latham, Michael

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shelton, Sir William

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Shersby, Michael

Livsey, Richard

Sims, Roger

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lord, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

McCrea, Rev William

Soames, Hon Nicholas

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Speller, Tony

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Squire, Robin

Maclennan, Robert

Stanbrook, Ivor

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Madel, David

Stephen, Nicol

Mans, Keith

Stern, Michael

Maples, John

Stevens, Lewis

Marland, Paul

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Marlow, Tony

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stokes, Sir John

Maude, Hon Francis

Sumberg, David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Summerson, Hugo

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mitchell, Sir David

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Morrison, Sir Charles

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

Moss, Malcolm

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Thornton, Malcolm

Needham, Richard

Thurnham, Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Tracey, Richard

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Tredinnick, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Trippier, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Norris, Steve

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Oppenheim, Phillip

Walden, George

Page, Richard

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Paice, James

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Wallace, James

Patnick, Irvine

Waller, Gary

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Walters, Sir Dennis

Patten, Rt Hon John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Pawsey, James

Warren, Kenneth

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Watts, John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wells, Bowen

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wheeler, Sir John

Portillo, Michael

Whitney, Ray

Price, Sir David

Widdecombe, Ann

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Wiggin, Jerry

Rathbone, Tim

Wilkinson, John

Riddick, Graham

Wilshire, David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Winterton, Nicholas

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wolfson, Mark

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Wood, Timothy

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Rost, Peter

Yeo, Tim

Rowe, Andrew

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Younger, Rt Hon George

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Sayeed, Jonathan

Tellers for the Noes:

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Mr. David Lightbown and

Shaw, David (Dover)

Mr. Tom Sackville.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 201.

Division No. 101]

[10.15 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Durant, Sir Anthony

Aitken, Jonathan

Dykes, Hugh

Alexander, Richard

Eggar, Tim

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Allason, Rupert

Evennett, David

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Fallon, Michael

Amess, David

Farr, Sir John

Amos, Alan

Favell, Tony

Arbuthnot, James

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Aspinwall, Jack

Fishburn, John Dudley

Atkins, Robert

Fookes, Dame Janet

Atkinson, David

Forman, Nigel

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Baldry, Tony

Forth, Eric

Batiste, Spencer

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fox, Sir Marcus

Beggs, Roy

Freeman, Roger

Bellingham, Henry

French, Douglas

Bendall, Vivian

Fry, Peter

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Gale, Roger

Benyon, W.

Gardiner, Sir George

Bevan, David Gilroy

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gill, Christopher

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Body, Sir Richard

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gorst, John

Boswell, Tim

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Bottomley, Peter

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

Gregory, Conal

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Bowis, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Grist, Ian

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Ground, Patrick

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brazier, Julian

Hague, William

Bright, Graham

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

Hampson, Dr Keith

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hanley, Jeremy

Buck, Sir Antony

Hannam, Sir John

Budgen, Nicholas

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

Burns, Simon

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Burt, Alistair

Harris, David

Butcher, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Butterfill, John

Hawkins, Christopher

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hayes, Jerry

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Carrington, Matthew

Hayward, Robert

Carttiss, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cash, William

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Chapman, Sydney

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Chope, Christopher

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Hill, James

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hind, Kenneth

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Hordern, Sir Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Cormack, Patrick

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Couchman, James

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Day, Stephen

Hunter, Andrew

Devlin, Tim

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dickens, Geoffrey

Irvine, Michael

Dicks, Terry

Jack, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Jackson, Robert

Dover, Den

Jessel, Toby

Dunn, Bob

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

1064

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rost, Peter

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Rowe, Andrew

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kilfedder, James

Sayeed, Jonathan

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Shelton, Sir William

Knox, David

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shersby, Michael

Latham, Michael

Sims, Roger

Lee, John (Pendle)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lightbown, David

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Speller, Tony

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lord, Michael

Squire, Robin

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Stanbrook, Ivor

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Steen, Anthony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stern, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Stevens, Lewis

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Madel, David

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mans, Keith

Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Maples, John

Stokes, Sir John

Marland, Paul

Sumberg, David

Marlow, Tony

Summerson, Hugo

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Maude, Hon Francis

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thornton, Malcolm

Mitchell, Sir David

Thurnham, Peter

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Tracey, Richard

Moss, Malcolm

Tredinnick, David

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Trippier, David

Needham, Richard

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nelson, Anthony

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Neubert, Sir Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Nicholls, Patrick

Walden, George

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Norris, Steve

Waller, Gary

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Walters, Sir Dennis

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Page, Richard

Warren, Kenneth

Paice, James

Watts, John

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Wells, Bowen

Patnick, Irvine

Wheeler, Sir John

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Whitney, Ray

Patten, Rt Hon John

Widdecombe, Ann

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wiggin, Jerry

Pawsey, James

Wilkinson, John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wilshire, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Porter, David (Waveney)

Winterton, Nicholas

Portillo, Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Price, Sir David

Wood, Timothy

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Rathbone, Tim

Yeo, Tim

Riddick, Graham

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Younger, Rt Hon George

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Roe, Mrs Marion

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Mr. Tom Sackville.

1065

NOES

Allen, Graham

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Alton, David

Eadie, Alexander

Anderson, Donald

Edwards, Huw

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Enright, Derek

Armstrong, Hilary

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Fatchett, Derek

Ashton, Joe

Faulds, Andrew

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Fisher, Mark

Barron, Kevin

Flannery, Martin

Battle, John

Flynn, Paul

Beckett, Margaret

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Beith, A. J.

Foster, Derek

Bell, Stuart

Foulkes, George

Bellotti, David

Fraser, John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Fyfe, Maria

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

Galloway, George

Benton, Joseph

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Bidwell, Sydney

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Blair, Tony

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Boateng, Paul

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Boyes, Roland

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bradley, Keith

Graham, Thomas

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Grocott, Bruce

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hain, Peter

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hardy, Peter

Callaghan, Jim

Harman, Ms Harriet

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Haynes, Frank

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Canavan, Dennis

Henderson, Doug

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Hinchliffe, David

Carr, Michael

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hood, Jimmy

Clelland, David

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Cohen, Harry

Howells, Geraint

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hoyle, Doug

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Crowther, Stan

Ingram, Adam

Cryer, Bob

Janner, Greville

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cunningham, Dr John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kennedy, Charles

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Kilfoyle, Peter

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

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Dewar, Donald

Kirkwood, Archy

Dixon, Don

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Dobson, Frank

Lambie, David

Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

Lamond, James

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Leadbitter, Ted

1066

Lewis, Terry

Quin, Ms Joyce

Litherland, Robert

Radice, Giles

Livsey, Richard

Randall, Stuart

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Redmond, Martin

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Loyden, Eddie

Robertson, George

McAllion, John

Rogers, Allan

McAvoy, Thomas

Rooney, Terence

McCartney, Ian

Rowlands, Ted

McCrea, Rev William

Ruddock, Joan

Macdonald, Calum A.

Sheerman, Barry

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McLeish, Henry

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Maclennan, Robert

Short, Clare

McMaster, Gordon

Skinner, Dennis

McNamara, Kevin

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Madden, Max

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

Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

Marek, Dr John

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Spearing, Nigel

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Maxton, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Meacher, Michael

Stephen, Nicol

Meale, Alan

Stott, Roger

Michael, Alun

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Turner, Dennis

Morgan, Rhodri

Vaz, Keith

Morley, Elliot

Wallace, James

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Walley, Joan

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Mullin, Chris

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Paul

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

O'Brien, William

Wilson, Brian

O'Hara, Edward

Winnick, David

O'Neill, Martin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Parry, Robert

Worthington, Tony

Pendry, Tom

Wray, Jimmy

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Prescott, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Primarolo, Dawn

Mr. Jack Thompson and

Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on its prudent economic policies, which have led to a substantial reduction in inflation; notes that the level of inflation in the United Kingdom has been half that under the previous Government, is now below the average for the European Community and close to the level in Germany; notes further that low inflation is essential to a sustained recovery in output and employment; and draws attention to the policies of Her Majesty's Opposition, which would inevitably lead to higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.

Fire Service College
10.26 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Fire Service College Trading Fund Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.
The Fire Service college is the central training institution of the British fire service. It is time that it moved on and became a trading fund.
A little history first. The college is a Home Office establishment and, for many years, was mainly financed from the Home Office vote with all fire brigades' staff training being provided free of charge. Two years ago, an agreement was reached with the local authority associations whereby the cost of meeting that training would be met by charges levied by the college with the additional burden on fire authorities being funded through the revenue support grant—initially by top-slicing. The college is scheduled to become an executive agency under the Government's "next steps" programme on 1 April 1992 and full direct charging will be introduced on that date. Thereafter, the college's expenditure will be fully financed by receipts from its customers. If the House approves the order, the college will be the first "next steps" agency to operate as a trading fund from the outset.
Mr. John Greenway: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, when he talks about trading receipts, he has it in mind that the Fire Service college will be able to attract custom from the private sector? Big industrial plants, for example, would then be able to have their fire services trained by the Fire Service college. There is an important point for the North Yorkshire fire service and for many others. Would that reduce the charge for our local authority fire services?
Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend. If the trading fund is set up, the charges levied on the private sector would be such that the charges levied at present on fire authorities will be reduced. The public sector will benefit substantially from the net effects of the order.
Mr. Allen McKay: If the private sector has its fire officers trained at Moreton-in-Marsh, given that the college is at full capacity now, the training of fire service officers will have to be curtailed to make room for private services.
Mr. Patten: There is no possibility of that. I envisage that about three quarters of the work of the trading fund "next steps" agency, if the House should approve it, will be involved in training local authorities. Some local authorities are already telling us that they intend to make other training arrangements with new freedoms.
The earlier financial arrangements meant that the college had, in effect, a monopoly in the supply of fire officer training. The introduction of direct charges means that brigades are free to look to any training provider. Although direct competition in the range of courses is limited by the high cost of providing a fully equipped fireground—the college's fireground is, in the proper sense of the word, unique—the college certainly faces competition in future for part of its curriculum. Perhaps I may give a few examples.
1068
The Civil Aviation Authority training school at Teesside, the offshore fire training centre at Montrose, and the Petroleum Training Federation already have particular niches in certain bits of the market. Many college courses are classroom-based. They do not make use of the panoply of firegrounds facilities and they may be capable of being provided by other training institutes. I also understand on advice that some fire authorities which maintain facilities for technical and recruit training are considering whether it would be more cost-effective to expand their own facilities rather than send their people to Moreton-inMarsh. That is a perfectly proper thing for a fire authority to choose to do.
Mr. William O'Brien: Could not it be said that the existing college has the facilities of all fire services throughout the country because they sent their officers there to be trained? Do we take it from what the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said that we are witnessing the privatisation of the training of officers and, therefore, the first step to the privatisation of the fire services? That would leave many communities vulnerable because of the Government's cuts in local government services. Is this not the first step to privatisation?
Mr. Patten: The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) raised two separate points about vulnerability. Under the charge of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the fire services inspectorate ensures that a proper level of fire cover is maintained in all parts of the kingdom. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, we are not seeing the first steps to privatisation. Hon. Members know what the Government are like—we do not mess about; if we thought that it was right to privatise, we would privatise straight away.
At the moment, the move to a trading fund and a "next steps" agency status will enable enormous benefits in fire service training. In particular, 450 commercial companies wish to pay the full cost—a substantial sum indeed—for student weeks of fire training, which means that the sums charged to fire authorities will be substantially reduced. That is a bargain to the public sector. By the time I have explained that matter, I should be very surprised if any hon. Members would think of voting against this important order.
The order is fully consistent with the principles underlying the White Paper "Competing for Quality". The college always has provided and intends to continue to provide a highly professional training service, and I pay tribute to those in the fire service training college for what they do. The college is first-rate and it has a worldwide reputation. The establishment of a trading fund will provide the college with greater financial flexibilities, in particular enabling it to react much more quickly to changing demand from those who want to use its services.
I now refer to the order itself. Articles 1 and 2 state that the college will become a trading fund on 1 April, to coincide with the start of the financial year. The college, as I am sure that the House knows, is established under section 23 of the Fire Services Act 1947, under which the Secretary of State may establish and maintain a central training institution for providing courses of instruction in matters relating to fire services. We propose that all the operations of the college should be financed through the trading fund.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Minister accept that this will be about the 58th "next steps" agency? Will it be any more accountable directly to Members of Parliament than any of the other 57? Questions tabled about agencies never see the light of day in Hansard or any other publication that is readily available to Members. Will the Minister guarantee that, when Members table questions, ministerial responsibility will be accepted for the college and that answers to those questions will appear in Hansard?
Mr. Patten: Day-to-day responsibility for the agency, as for other agencies, will reside in the chief executive designate, who will deal with normal operational matters. Broader policy matters are, of course, for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Lord Ferrers, who has ministerial responsibility for the matter.
Article 3 provides that any loans issued to the trading fund will be made from the Home Office vote, while article 4(1) and the schedule establish the assets and liabilities which will be appropriated to the trading fund on 1 April.
Article 4(2) provides the percentage of the net assets appropriated to the fund to be financed by public dividend capital. As the House knows, that is the public sector equivalent of share capital in a company or an equity stake in a business.
Article 5 provides that the maximum amount of loan which may be issued to the fund shall be set at £15 million. That relates to new loans that may be needed after 1 April 1992. That is set at such a level as to ensure that in a period of about four years the House will have an opportunity to debate whether the loan needs to be examined and increased. That means that the House will be able to debate the future of the college as a trading fund. Perhaps at that stage privatisation issues may emerge.
I should also tell the House about the pricing policy that the college proposes to adopt. For some years the college has provided training, albeit on a small scale, for private sector companies such as those in the chemicals and petroleum industries, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred. The college has been established and maintained for many years by public funds. It has a large staff of professional firefighters of great expertise seconded from brigades. Therefore, it is right and proper that the charges made to the private sector should take account of that public investment. Course fees for that sector will be set above full cost. In other words, the private sector will be charged more than the full cost per student week at a level which the market will bear.
Conversely, the college will aim in its strategy to charge the statutory fire authorities prices which are substantially below full cost. Thus the fire authorities will benefit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale highlighted, from the new arrangements. Those fees will be below full cost but income from other customers will allow the college to meet its overall financial objectives. That is a very good deal for the public sector.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister says that there will be a substantial take-up of places by the private sector. One can imagine that in the first years that take-up will be substantial. But if it is not maintained at a substantial level and there is a fall-off—for example, if recessionary conditions continue and the private sector is unable to take up those places—under the Minister's
1070
arrangements the fire authorities would inevitably find themselves having to pay a great deal more than the sums that he has in mind.
Mr. Patten: I do not believe that that would be so. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the trading difficulties that face several companies in the private sector which need to train firefighters at this time. If at this point in the economic cycle we have 450 outstanding applications, I doubt that in two or three years there will be sufficient capacity. The hon. Gentleman's worry might well be in the other direction.
By next year the private sector may well be charged —these are not exact figures—about £1,100 a week for the average course whereas the public sector would be charged about £600 a week. That is a substantial difference and a bargain for the public sector. That is why we have introduced the order.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Patten: Of course. I am glad to see a Member from Lancashire rising, to join the Yorkshire Members.
Mr. McCartney: Can the Minister tell that I come from Lancashire by my accent?
Mr. Patten: I shall make no racist remarks.
Mr. McCartney: He should not make any sizeist ones either.
The Minister is trying to paint a rosy picture of a bargain for local authorities. Is it not the truth that the £595 per week student course—if that is the exact figure is an increase from £219 per week on the previous year? For my local authority that means an immediate increase of £330,000, none of which has been taken into account in terms of next year's standard spending assessment. That is a huge hike in costs for local authority fire services.
Mr. Patten: That is why there is a 16 per cent. increase in provision for fire authorities in the current year and why next year there will be a further 8·4 per cent. increase in provision—representing a substantial increase above inflation—and increases in pay for firefighters. As I am sure the House knows, although training is important, the amount of money devoted to it by fire authorities is a small part of their overall budget.
Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Patten: I should not mind making a spot of progress but I shall give way because the hon. Gentleman has a nice smile.
Mr. Flynn: I am sure that the increases that the Minister mentioned are genuine, but will he look at a recent parliamentary answer which established that one of the unexpected effects of recession is a great increase in fires, especially those started by owners who are about to go into receivership, and who have set fire to their factories?
Mr. Patten: The reports are partly speculative. We will have to study a run of figures for several years to find out if what has happened in the past year or 18 months represents the trend to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Perhaps I could return to my speech. Subject to the draft order being approved, the Treasury proposes to lay a minute before the House setting out the financial objective for the college—which my right hon. Friend the

1071
Home Secretary has set—which will be to make an average real rate of return in the next three years of not less than 6·5 per cent. on capital employed, on the basis of reasonable prospects for the future. The college certainly forecasts that it will be able to achieve that.
In response to earlier concerns about provision of training for the public sector, let me say that about 80 per cent. of the 1992–93 target figure for United Kingdom fire service student weeks has already been confirmed. That means that bookings by the majority of fire authorities have been accepted and are already in place. That represents an investment by authorities of about £9 million, ranging from smaller authorities spending perhaps £60,000 on training to the larger authorities spending about £300,000 per year. There is also great interest from the commercial and international sectors by reason of the college's exceptional facilities. It is late at night, but it is worthwhile recording the facilities at Moreton-in-Marsh. There is a full-scale replica shopping mall, industrial buildings, a chemical plant, a stretch of motorway, and aircraft, ship and railway complexes, providing for realistic hot fire training in the wide range of environments which firefighters may sometimes encounter. That is why 450 companies are queuing up to join in the training there, to spend money and to reduce the burden on the chargepayer and the taxpayer.
Before laying the draft order, we placed in the Libraries of both Houses, in accordance with sections 1 and 6 of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973, a report on the consultations conducted about trading fund status for the fire service college. As the report shows, no concerns about trading fund status were expressed to us by any person. At present the staff of the fire authorities account for about 90 per cent. of college places. Although the level of courses that that figure implies is set to rise, we expect the proportion of courses dedicated to fire brigade staff to remain substantial. Government support to the college will continue at its present high level, as it will to the United Kingdom fire service.
The fire service college has done a good job to date. Its capacity to do so in the future will be enhanced should this order be approved tonight. The flexibility that trading fund status will give is important. It is a classic example of obtaining better value for money for the taxpayer and for the community charge payer. A vote against the order is a vote in favour of charging our fire authorities higher prices for training, thereby costing the chargepayer and the taxpayer more. I commend the order to the House.
10.44 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: The way in which the Minister ran through his speech without any real feeling for the difficulties faced by the fire services was quite breathtaking. Anyone who speaks to senior fire service officers and men and women in the service at all levels and in all parts of the country will find that the service is heading for disarray and disorder. The story is everywhere the same, and the order is at the heart of the concern. Lack of morale, uncertainty, bitterness and fear for the future all centre on the order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is not the occasion for a general debate on fire services. It is a narrow debate on the funding of the college.
Mr. Sheerman: I know that it is a narrow debate, and the whole of my speech will focus on that.
The Minister was complacent about the background to the order and, as a brief preface to my speech, I must make known the genuine concern in the fire service and the fact that the order is at the centre of that concern. The proposed status of the service is at the heart of the problems it faces.
Mr. O'Brien: One of our worries about the privatisation of the training college is that it will cost fire authorities more. That will lead to a reduction in the number of personnel or in equipment, thus reducing fire cover for many communities. Morale in the service is reducing, because people know that the order will reduce the services and resources of fire authorities. That has an impact on the morale of men in the force.
Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) puts his finger on the precise problem. What happens to the college and to the nature of training will affect the service that can be provided by fire authorities, which to date have provided a service that is second to none.
The order increases the problems faced by the fire service in maintaining the security of people all over Britain. We have evidence of the concern of specific authorities not far from your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that concern focuses on the training college.
The Opposition oppose the order, and we are not alone in opposing the move to agency status. Whatever the Minister says, we know that the Fire Brigades Union, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the National Association of Fire Officers are opposed to the move, and the Association of County Councils disagree with the decision on agency status. The Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists is worried about the order. All those organisations fear that agency status and direct charging for courses will lead to a reduction in the training that fire authorities can afford. That will mean a reduction in the high standards of firefighting that Britain enjoys, and we shall face the risk that the college will not be financially viable.
The Minister, as ever, painted a rosy picture of a move to agency status followed in three years by privatisation. He was quite candid about that. Many fire authorities are already under considerable financial pressure because of inadequate standard spending assessments. For example, SSAs take no account of non-fire emergency rescue services. That relates to people locked in or out of premises or trapped in lifts. Those of us who have a motorway through our constituency know about the enormous—[Interruption.] With typical arrogance, the Minister turns up his nose and screws up his eyes as if he does not want to hear the truth. The truth about the order is that all the services are under threat. The Minister said that a stretch of motorway has been built at the college. One of the training courses in the college is for the non-fire emergency. Those emergencies account for 77 per cent. of the growth in the calls on the fire service.
The growth in fire emergencies is about 7 per cent. per annum; for non-fire emergencies, the growth is 77 per cent. The SSA takes no account of those emergencies. That is what lies behind the whole problem with the college. It provides the training to get people out of wrecked cars and the worst sort of situations, as well as the more familiar

1073
incidents of people locked in premises, flooded premises and cats up trees. Those services represent 39·4 per cent. of emergency services provided, for example, by the London fire brigade. It represents a 71 per cent. increase since 1985–86.
In addition, the SSAs make insufficient allowance for the cost of fire service pensions. I will not go into that tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I would be out of order, but it must be said that those pensions have to be paid for out of revenue. It is a rapidly rising cost as a proportion of revenue budgets.
The order, which provides for direct funding of the college, puts even greater pressure on budgets. Indeed, this financial year, two major fire authorities were unable to send anyone to the college. What sort of country do we live in when two major fire authorities can no longer send their officers to the premier training centre in the country'? That is a severe condemnation—
Mr. John Patten: As a matter of fact, the college has undertaken, and will continue to undertake, to meet all training demands made by local authority fire brigades before accepting applications from the commercial sector.
Mr. Sheerman: That does not solve the problem if a fire authority cannot afford to send the officers.
Her Majesty's inspector of fire services expressed his concern about brigades being unable to send officers to train on those excellent courses. Perhaps the Minister will intervene yet again to say why the inspector is concerned. If the Government, the Home Secretary and his team are not concerned, why is the inspector concerned that the ability to send men and women on those courses will be lost?

The problem from this April onwards will be far more dire. Instead of phasing in direct charging over three years, the Government have rushed into full direct charging and have abolished top slicing. That means that, this April, fire authorities will have to pay the full cost of training their fire fighters at the college. Many authorities simply do not have the money to pay for the training that they need. It is nothing short of a scandal. Our authorities are having to make choices between cuts in training and cuts in other budget areas.
It is not often that I pray in aid Buckinghamshire, but I understand that that authority is proposing to close four retained fire stations—not because they are unnecessary, not because they do not provide good cover for some of the surburban areas that are becoming increasingly a problem to service in prompt time, but because the authority can save £90,000 and so pay for its staff to go to the college. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point about Buckinghamshire.
Mr. John Patten: Does that have anything to do with the order?
Mr. Sheerman: It has everything to do with it. The Minister does not need your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During his 20-minute speech, he mentioned privatisation, the kitchen sink, his pet dog, the smiles on the faces of my hon. Friends, and everything else—but he was not called to order. Now the right hon. Gentleman seeks the protection of the Chair, as he usually does, because he is frightened of a good debate.
Only the day before yesterday, the Minister fled from a television studio, frightened to enter into debate with
1074
Opposition Members because his boss, the Home Secretary, had sent out an edict saying that Government Ministers must not appear with shadow Ministers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us return to the debate on the order.
Mr. Sheerman: The Minister fled from the television studios. I want to debate this order on television, before a wider audience—but the right hon. Gentleman has been forbidden to appear because he will get a drubbing, as he gets a drubbing over law and order and everything else. The Minister is frightened to go into a television studio with me—terrified.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us return to the order, please.
Mr. Sheerman: In a democracy, we should be able to debate such matters with Ministers on television, without them running away.
My own county is spending £250,000 on training, although it estimates the cost of its training needs at £500,000, and has been advised by the college that it should spend £750,000. Councillor Laurence Conlan, chairman of West Yorkshire fire authority, is extremely concerned that it cannot meet the desired training standards. Is it not a condemnation of the order that the chairman of a leading fire authority such as West Yorkshire is deeply concerned that neither he nor the authority are fulfilling their obligations because of the effects of the Home Office decision on fire service training? The consequences of implementing the order will be even more dire.
The detrimental effect of the move to training fund status can be judged by a written answer that I recently received from the Minister. I asked:
"how many student places have been confirmed for (a) local authority financed brigades and (b) industrial and overseas courses at the fire service college for the year beginning April 1992".
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not interested in my question or the answer that he gave. Because they are not mentioned in his brief, he will not intervene. Instead, another little piece of paper will come from the Box. The Minister replied:
"Three thousand, three hundred and forty-eight places covering 13,019 student weeks have so far been confirmed for local authority fire brigades for the year from 1 April 1992. One hundred and sixty-nine places covering 263 student weeks have been confirmed for the industrial and overseas sectors"—[Official Report, 11 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 439.]
On that basis, it is highly unlikely that the college will reach its income targets and be at all viable in its first year as a training fund. That serious situation was totally covered up and disguised by the Minister's remarks this evening. My remarks are based on the right hon. Gentleman's written answer, which was presumably prepared by civil servants and is correct. The Minister knows that there is a severe problem in funding the college on the basis that he introduced tonight.
The IPMS estimates that the total income from courses so far booked will be £7·969 million, but it is estimated that the college needs an income of £ 17·4 million. There may be some late bookings, but it is unlikely that the number of student weeks needed on which the college is operating this year will be achieved. This year, 19,000 to 20,000 student weeks are booked.

1075
The college hoped to make more money by offering courses overseas and for other non-fire work, but they have not materialised in sufficient numbers. In any event, if the college looks overseas and to industrial needs, it will gradually move away from its key role as a provider of national fire service training.
There are additional problems in this brave new world of privatisation, which puts the market before public safety. Some authorities are telling their firefighters that, if they move to a different authority within three years of attending a training course, they will have to pay back the cost of their training. Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what the order will do to the mobility of trained personnel? What if teachers, or members of any other profession, had to repay the costs of their training before they could move? This is a recipe for disaster—for the decimation of a public service.
It is absurd. A well-trained fire officer is what we have always considered him to be: a national asset, wherever he —or she—is stationed. The move to trading fund status is short-sighted. As usual with the Government, it displays more concern for the ideology of political dogma than for the safety of the public.[Interruption.] It is about time the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) read a few books. I can tell him that, in a few weeks, he will have a damn sight more time to do so. He will have many quiet hours on the Opposition Back Benches in which to read them—piles of them. We shall send a few books to educate him, although it is probably too late. We might even send him to the fire service college for training, if he could obtain the entrance qualifications.
As I was saying, the move to trading fund status is short-sighted, and displays more concern for political dogma than for the safety of our public. That is typical of what Opposition Members have come to expect from the Government. The fire service college has always been seen as a national asset. What is wrong with one of the best fire colleges in the world providing training for overseas forces? Indeed, why should it not offer the same service to the private sector? We do not disagree with that. What we oppose is the proposal to destroy its very base—to move it into the private sector, and endanger its future and its ability to remain as a centre.
This centre has offered high-quality training to our fire brigades. Now all that is to be jeopardised in pursuit of a
1076
market approach that will leave some brigades with inadequately trained staff, and may force the college to close. We are making a fuss about the order because this is a question of public safety. It is a question of whether the country can provide a proper response to the numerous fires that still occur, and—tragically—kill people, usually in the residential sector. The service to residential areas needs constantly to be improved; it does not need to be watered down. We have to get machines, men and women to those fires to save young lives every year, to try to lower the number of desperate casualties. The order will undermine the ability of our public service to do that.
Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting to the public that, as a result of the order, the 54 fire brigades in England and Wales will not provide the same standard of service. Are not those brigades inspected by Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services to ensure that their very high standards are maintained? There is no question of any diminution in standards of fire cover or excellence.
Mr. Sheerman: I am sorry that especially the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs has got it wrong. If he did his homework and a little more reading of Her Majesty's inspectors' reports instead of getting the Clerks to read them, he would find that time and time again they have expressed their concern about declining standards in individual forces throughout the country. They have expressed concern about the enormous backlog in the checking of safety standards in, for example, health premises.
Sir John Wheeler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheerman: No. Time is short and a number of my hon. Friends want to speak in this important debate. Yet again, the hon. Gentleman shows his ignorance of these matters.
We believe that public safety should be the paramount consideration. This is an ill-considered move by the Government. Its implementation is being botched. We intend to reverse it as soon as we form the Government in a few weeks' time. After the election, we shall restore the college to its former position as a national asset. We shall provide all fire brigades with the training they need to keep the public safe and secure. That we pledge, and we shall do it in a few short weeks.
11.6 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I do not intend to detain the House for long, having largely covered the point that I wanted to make when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State kindly allowed me to intervene during his speech. However, having listened to what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) had to say about fire service standards, I hope that you will find that a few comments by me are in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I may refute some of his allegations.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) is here. We discussed this matter privately in the Select Committee on Home Affairs when considering what issues the Committee ought to investigate. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is regrettable that during the lifetime of this Parliament we have not had the opportunity thoroughly to investigate the fire service. We did the next best thing. We invited Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services, Sir Reginald Doyle, to come before the Committee and give evidence.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield has just made two allegations. First, he said that the chief inspector of fire services was unhappy about the standard of the service. On 27 November the chief inspector told the Committee that there had been 31 applications to the Home Secretary to reduce brigade establishments because review of the fire cover, based on the 1985 fire cover standards, had proved that there was substantial over-provision. That is precisely what happened in north Yorkshire and in my own constituency.
If the hon. Gentleman reads the Select Committee's report he will find that I raised the matter with Her Majesty's chief inspector and that what was considered to be over-provision in terms of Home Office standards of cover was not regarded as over-provision by the general public. Therefore, the expected reduction in cover in north Yorkshire was postponed, although I am pleased to be able to tell my right hon. Friend that we have gone ahead with the improvements that were also recommended. The whole process has led to a strengthening, not to a reduction, of the fire cover in north Yorkshire.
The hon. Gentleman also made a specific allegation about inspections for the purpose of granting fire certificates.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a long way from the order which is before the House. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's position. It is one thing for an hon. Member, by way of illustration, to quote a remark, and quite another for another hon. Member to seek to expand that into a general debate about matters other than those before the House.
Mr. Greenway: I did say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the permission of yourself and of the House.
The number of outstanding inspections has reduced over the past year from 3,041 to 1,823. The blame for the number still outstanding rests squarely on the inability to recruit inspectors in the London area. That is a problem across the whole public sector in London.
I do not believe that what the House is being asked to approve is unique. I was not a Member in 1968—I had not left school much before then—but if I remember correctly, in 1968 the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr.
1078
Benn), when Postmaster-General, made the Post Office into a trading fund. So we are not being asked to consider a new proposal.
I am a great enthusiast of the "next steps" agency programme. The Select Committee on Home Affairs considered the forensic science service, the passport office and the immigration service and "next steps" agency status was very attractive.[Interruption.] It is all very well Opposition Members barracking, but from my discussions with some Opposition Members who are not in their places tonight but who came to the House in 1987, as I did, I think that they are beginning to see some of the benefits of "next steps" agencies. In the unlikely event of the Labour party forming the next Government, I suspect that the recent programme of "next steps" agencies would be continued.
Three matters are crucial to the consideration of the order. The first is whether, by this process, there will be any reduction in the training of fire service personnel employed by the public sector. My right hon. Friend gave an assurance about that, but I ask him to go further. When he replies, will he give the House an assurance that if there is evidence of difficulty he will not hesitate to come back to the House, or consider the matter with the chief fire inspector, who did not raise it with us—
Mr. John Patten: I am happy to give that assurance to my hon. Friend now. I have already said that in three or four years it will be necessary to consider the loan provisions. That will provide an opportunity for a proper debate in the House again about the future. If at that stage right hon. and hon. Gentlemen want to raise issues concerned with adequacy or inadequacy, privatisation or state ownership, they can be considered then.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I do not think that the House could have expected any more categorical assurance than that.
Accountability was also raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. That is precisely the role of Her Majesty's chief inspector. When Sir Reginald Doyle appeared before the Select Committee in December I think that all members of the Committee, from both sides of the House, were greatly reassured by the way in which he gave his evidence and the way in which he has carried out his task. I do not think that the House needs constantly to ask questions about matters which are already the subject of close scrutiny by a chief inspector, whether in the fire service or in the police service. Hon. Members have been making a meal of that point.
The trading fund will receive money from both the public and private sectors. The public sector is getting something of a bargain from this arrangement. Because of the high level of expertise involved in the training of fire personnel, I can understand why industries, particularly those involved in industrial processes where there is a risk of fire, want to have their personnel properly trained at the establishment at Moreton-in-Marsh. My right hon. Friend the Minister suggested that 450 commercial companies are queuing up to take advantage of the facility and to pay over the odds. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can confirm that that provides an opportunity for expansion of the fire training college, not a contraction, which is what the hon. Member for Huddersfield seemed to suggest. As I have said, the public sector is being charged below full cost and that will be a bargain for the state purse.

1079
As a Yorkshire man, I can understand why other hon. Members representing the West Yorkshire service are concerned about funding problems that may arise in the immediate future because of other factors such as standing spending assessments. We saw difficulties last year with the West Yorkshire constabulary. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary considered that and a number of us made representations about it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North said, there is a question of priorities.
We are dealing with a principle that can provide for the better training of fire personnel in both public and private sectors. Those personnel will be trained at a reasonable cost to the state purse and there will be an expansion of training. The House is being asked to approve a medium to long-term opportunity. Although there may be some genuine difficulties that my right hon. Friend the Minister and my noble Friend Lord Ferrers in another place may wish to address, the principle of what we are being asked to approve is compelling.
11.17 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I shall be brief as other hon. Members wish to contribute. I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the order being narrow, and I shall attempt to abide by your wishes. I am sure that you will appreciate that an order such as this affects the budgets of local fire authorities.
My fire authority in West Yorkshire will be in some difficulty as a result of the order. We are all aware that, before 1991, attendance was free. The only costs falling to the fire authorities were travel, out-of-pocket expenses and temporary promotion to cover for the absence of staff involved. The charge for attendance in 1991–92 was £219 per student week, representing about one third of the full cost. The charge for West Yorkshire in 1992–93, assuming normal usage, would be £595 per student week. The only way to gain a reduction would be for West Yorkshire to commit itself over a three-year period and to take up many more course weeks than it needs.
The number of student weeks required for 1992–93, given no budgetary restrictions, is 840, at an approximate cost of £500,000. Due to budget constraints, West Yorkshire can afford only 378 weeks, at a total cost of £225,000. If those figures are correct, West Yorkshire will lack 422 weeks training. Some serious cuts have been made to enable the authority to provide that insufficient training. On 21 February, the council agreed to cut £833,000 from next year's firefighting budget to escape poll tax capping. More than £54 million is needed to enable the service to stand still in 1992–93, but the Government have limited spending to £52·1 million.
The county fire authority will use £1·3 million from balances to offset the shortfall but will still be forced to make cuts totalling £833,000. Savings of £533,000 will be made by a further 12-month freeze on recruitment and of £280,000 by reducing attendances at the national fire service college. The West Yorkshire force has vacancies for 133 firefighters, and because of the budgets proposed for 1992–93, they will increase by a further 90.
As the Minister will be aware, the Fire Services Act 1947 requires a fire authority to provide the services for its area of such a fire brigade and such equipment as may be
1080
necessary to meet efficiently all normal requirements and the efficient training of the members of the fire brigade. The service has a statutory obligation to train its members. West Yorkshire fire authority is unable to do that for 1992–93.
Despite its severe budget restraints, and recognising that it must conduct some training, the force has had to forgo some other activities. It appears that Pontefract fire authority has made the serious decision to withdraw emergency services from Pontefract fire station to enable it to send officers to the training school.
Emergency services in Pontefract are directly at the crossroads of the M62, the A 1 and major collieries and chemical plants. Special services are required to deal with major accidents and calamities. We are risking people's lives to enable the authority to work within its budgets. If that continues, it will be unable to use its equipment and fire officers will not be trained to fulfil their duties.
The order will cause the West Yorkshire fire service serious problems. I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts and will recognise the points that I have made.
11.23 pm
Sir John Wheeler: I intervene briefly, having been stimulated to do so by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), who made a point about the shortage of funds in his fire brigade area. In evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the chief inspector of fire services, Sir Reginald Doyle, said:
"And yet we are still losing millions of pounds because there has not been proper management of staffing at Bank Holidays."
If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the availability of resources in his fire brigade area, before the brigade cuts training or closes a vital service, he should ask about bank holiday working. Then he should ask further questions about sick leave. If he probes deeply enough, he will discover that the money about which he is so concerned can be recovered through an improvement in the management of the sick leave arrangements. There would then be no need for his brigade to cut training at the fire service college.
The order is entirely pragmatic. It will be in the best interests of the fire service in England and Wales. It will improve training arrangements and offer many opportunities for the fire service in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
11.25 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: As we debate this order, a fire service somewhere in the country will be fighting a fire, and it will depend on the training, skill and expertise of the firefighter, the person in charge of the tender and the station officer whether they and the person they are trying to save will get out alive and without serious injury. That is why the college was originally set up in the 1960s under the Fire Services Act 1947.
Paragraph 1(a) of the order proposes a major change in the way in which the organisation will be funded. In the 1960s, the Holroyd committee reported to the House on the formation of a national centre of training excellence for the fire service. Under the 1947 Act, the House determined—through the Home Secretary of the day—to set up such a centre. It was set up to provide open and free opportunities for people to receive the necessary training

1081
to enable them to carry out effectively their responsibilities to other members of the service and to the community. It was the final piece of the jigsaw in the setting up of a training facility to enhance a truly national, professional fire service, disciplined and dedicated to the provision of fire safety facilities in the United Kingdom.
The order sets back 30 years of commitment to the provision of a national centre of excellence, based on the concept of all brigades being involved in training to agreed standards and of the knowledge and expertise of all brigades being brought together so that training standards would improve and initiatives taken in research and development for the better use of fire service facilities and the production of new machinery and techniques. The order changes that dramatically, with the introduction of the charging principle.
The Minister tried to give the impression that there has been no opposition to the proposals, but he told only half the story. When the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council met to consider the proposals, the unanimous view was that the proposals were unacceptable and, in the long term, a bad move for the management of the fire service in the United Kingdom. It was believed that they would undermine the very concept of the national training curriculum. The professional advice given to the Government has been unanimously opposed to the proposals, but the Minister implied that there had been no opposition to training fund status. That is only part of the tale. Advisers have opposed the proposals because of the principle of direct charging.
In 1991–92, my own authority—the Greater Manchester fire service—purchased 884 student weeks. It is the second largest fire authority in Europe. The price of a week was £219 per student. By 1992–93, the cost per student week will have risen to £595. The Minister has already confirmed that. That all amounts to £330,000 in additional costs not allowed for by a corresponding increase in the SSA.
The Guardian of 25 February included an article by the paper's labour correspondent, who had this to say about the problems affecting fire authorities because of direct charging:
"Last week, the Association of County Councils considered problems that have arisen within the Fire Service since arrangements were changed to require brigades to pay the Fire Service College directly for training their employees. Some Fire authorities have been demanding repayment of officers' training costs when they moved to another authority. The ACC personnel sub-committee recommended that Fire authorities be told to keep to the spirit of the Purple Book agreement and recoup training costs only from officers leaving the Service. Extending repayment provisions to officers moving within the Fire Service could inhibit movement and `could also make officers reluctant to go on training courses'."
The major problems being created for brigades throughout the country are clearly evident from that.
After more than 30 years of cross-party acceptance of the idea of a national training scheme based at the national college, where personnel can improve their professionalism, these proposals seem nonsense. The college is acknowledged to be the best in the world, and the courses for officers and for junior officers are recognised as the premier courses of their kind.
To ensure the continuing quality of senior officers in the fire brigades in years to come, it is vital that, by means of this college, we maintain a throughput of brigade staff from all the fire brigades in the country. Hence the idea of free access: it meant that skilled personnel developing a
1082
professional approach to the management of our fire services continually passed through the college. That is the very principle that the Government are attacking.
I want to ask the Minister of State some questions; I hope that he will get out his pen and think about them. From article 2, it is clear that the Secretary of State will consult the chief executive designate about the control and running of the college. Following the appointment of the chief executive, will future appointments be made from among officers working in local authority brigades? Will the commandant of the college continue to be someone involved in the running of the fire services in Britain, or will he be brought in from outside the service?
Will the resources identified in article 1(a) for 1992–93 for the costs of going to the college be ring-fenced by the Department to ensure that the money will be used to send people to the college? What proportion of the standard spending assessment does the Home Office intend to commit to training places at the college?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the make-up of those who will serve on the advisory body? Will he ensure that representatives of local authority associations serve on it; and that the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and the Fire Brigades Union serve on it? Will he guarantee that they will continue to serve once the agency is set up after 1 April? It is important that the Minister assure us that the board will be made up of those serving in the fire service and of the trade unions.
11.35 pm
Mr. Allen McKay: I might have had more sympathy with some of the Minister's views if I had believed that he was intent on providing a service of better quality. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) talked only about value for money. During my time in the fire service, it was value for life that mattered, not value for money. Life was the essential ingredient, and Moreton-in-Marsh college has provided value for life. The training scheme was based on the premise that saving life was the predominant factor.
By setting up a trading fund, it is clear that the Minister is concerned more with financial considerations than with saving life. That is something that I cannot and will not accept, and I hope that we shall vote against this measure.
Moreton-in-Marsh has provided training and expertise for fire officers in the United Kingdom and throughout the world, as well as for those in the three fighting services. The college has enabled every fire-fighting establishment to provide its fire officers with a first-class training. As a result, the United Kingdom has, without doubt, the finest firefighting service in the world. It also has the finest fire officers in the world.
Those who have received training at Moreton-in-Marsh have taken the results of their training elsewhere. To my knowledge, the benefits of the training have been enjoyed at Bannyroyd at Huddersfield and at the fire station where I worked.
Against that background, the Minister is intent on making finance the predominant factor. He is wrong. A trading fund has to make a profit. The right hon. Gentleman talks about about outside people, but who has trained those people? They were trained by the fire officers at Moreton-in-Marsh, and then they went into industry. It

1083
seems that they will replace the training personnel at Moreton-in-Marsh. There are 470 applicants, but are there 470 vacancies?
Has the Minister talked to the Fire Brigades Union and the National Association of Fire Officers? We have not heard of any consultation of that sort, but the members of those organisations are at the sharp end. Those bodies provide the people who train at Moreton-in-Marsh and who enjoy the benefit of that training. We have heard nothing about the National Association of Fire Officers, or the Fire Brigades Union. Instead, we have had a financial statement.
The Minister has done a disservice to the fire service, the armed services and fire services throughout the world whose personnel have been trained at Moreton-in-Marsh. Those officers have shared their experiences and expertise.
For two years, the fire brigade of South Yorkshire has not been able to send any fire officers to Moreton-inMarsh because of the current financial arrangements. If officers cannot be sent to the college now, how will it be possible to send them when we have a trading establishment? If the college is not making a profit now and it is not possible to send officers to it for training, how will it ever be possible to send them to an establishment that is obliged to make a profit? The standard spending assessment of the South Yorkshire authority does not help matters.
The rate capping of the fire service has meant a cut in fire services. They are now 83 personnel undermanned. The staff are using machines which have been used for far longer than they should have been, and they are now using equipment that should have been replaced. Worst of all, they do not have the services and have not been able to send fire officers for training. The lack of training will filter down throughout the establishment, and the fire service will deteriorate.
The Government took on responsibility for the fire services, and the culmination of their responsibility is the fact that they are doing away with training. For what? It is to provide training facilities for which private industry will pay, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, through the nose or over the odds.
What negotiations has the Minister had with the Fire Brigades Union, the fire officers association, and the establishment at Moreton-in-Marsh on what the effects will be? What will the order mean for the fire service establishment and what effect will the order have on the morale of the training service?
The Minister's actions mean deterioration purely and simply for money. The order is not the beginning of the privatisation of the fire service—there is a long way to go. Local authorities will be unable to train staff at Moreton-in-Marsh. The Government cannot bring themselves to close that centre, so they have had to consider a way of putting private money into it, by setting up the trading fund. The money is a loan. The loan must be paid back, but by whom? The Minister must answer that question. He will be proved wrong.
11.41 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay). Hon. Members heard him
1084
mention that he has had considerable experience in the fire service. His Yorkshire colleagues know very well that, in particular over the past few difficult years for the South Yorkshire fire service, my hon. Friend has given particularly signal and splendid service. I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to my parliamentary neighbour, because he commands not only the respect of the House but the respect and affection of his Yorkshire colleagues, not least for his splendid work over the past two or three years in seeking to defend our area from the ravaging policies that the Government have inflicted upon it.
I was going to ask a series of questions, but they have all been asked. Therefore, I shall not detain the House for long, because the Minister has much to answer. It has already been made clear that we have the best fire service and the best fire training facilities in the world. The Minister looks very satisfied, but there is no cause for satisfaction in seeking to change that which is very good.
I have an example of the difference between the fire service of Britain and those of other so-called advanced countries. A few years ago, I saw in Europe—I shall not mention the area—a fire emergency. I timed it. It took 23 minutes for the appliance to go out. The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick),represents a Sheffield constituency for the time being. He will know that in our area—
Mr. Irvine Patnick: The hon. Gentleman was a candidate and was truly thrashed.
Mr. Hardy: I brought the majority down by a figure sufficient to unseat the Member of Parliament at the next election. I do not want to involve myself in an exchange of that nature.
There are industrial establishments in our area where dangerous materials are placed. Just after the incident that I described in Europe, there was a dangerous fire in what was then my constituency. There was no difficulty at all, because the South Yorkshire fire service was in attendance at an astonishing speed, with all the equipment and skills that it needed to deal with the fire.
The fire was so dangerous that a national newspaper rang up and said, "Is it true that you have had a fire near these dangerous materials?" The fire service said yes. The newspaper said, "How many were killed?" The fire service said, "None." It said, "How many people were badly burned?" The fire service said, "None." So, of course, nothing appeared in the newspaper. The fact remains that no one was killed or hurt. That achievement was possible because of the training that the senior officers of that force had received at Moreton-in-Marsh. They will not now receive that training in sufficient numbers.
Last year the Government trod on dangerous ground when they denied an adequate standard spending assessment to South Yorkshire and placed the authority and those responsible for fire services in our area in real difficulty. The authority had anguished meetings at which it strove to work out how it could meet the standards that the financial arrangements prevented it from meeting.
There is another point. I shall finish on it to leave the Minister time to reply to the many questions that have been put to him. Not far from my home there is a toxic waste plant. Several hon. Members know that I have

1085
raised the matter of the plant many times. I live not far from it. I do not live as close to it as some of my constituents, who have cause for daily anxiety.
A few months ago, there was a fire at the plant. It was during the latter part of the last recess, and I was in my garden. I immediately got into my car and drove to the plant. I was at the scene within two minutes. I wondered how long I would have to wait before the South Yorkshire fire service arrived. I live only a mile away, and was there within two minutes. The fire service followed me down the road. It came with not merely the fire appliance but the decontamination unit which has to be present if there is a fire at that establishment, where there is poisonous and dangerous carcinogenic waste.
I went to the plant knowing that officers in the force were trained to meet the ever more complex challenges which face the fire service. We should understand that, every day, new materials are invented which present mankind with new dangers and complexities. Every day there are new procedures and new anxieties. The Minister may smirk, but would anyone have expected the disaster at King's Cross? Would anyone have expected that carcinogenic chemicals would be deposited and left for three years at the site in my constituency?
If the fire service is not properly skilled to know how to deal with and respond to new materials and challenges, there is public risk. The fundamental obligation of any Government is to ensure public safety and public order. We know how much the Government have failed in public order. Their dangerous and dogmatic approach to this matter illustrates the clear and obvious fact that, no matter what words of support are received from the hon. Gentlemen behind the Minister, the fact remains that this step is a dangerous one. It is not in accordance with the advice of people in the provincial fire services. It is a dangerous step, which is being pursued purely because of the Government's attachment to private greed and public dogma.
11.43 pm
Mr. John Patten: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
Among all the speeches made by Opposition Members, I listened with the greatest care to that made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), who has signified his intention to lay down the burden of representing that constituency shortly. He spoke with the authority of someone who has served in the fire service. I respect him for that, and I listened carefully to what he had to say. I can assure him that nothing in the plans for the fire services college will lead to any diminution in training. Otherwise, the Government and Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services would not have countenanced the changes that have been proposed. I found the hon. Gentleman's speech rational, but sometimes new developments come along which perhaps were not around when the hon. Gentleman was training to be a fireman.
The speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) was much less rational. I cannot understand what comes over the hon. Gentleman. In Committee he is a hard-hitting, well-briefed debater, but if one puts him near the Dispatch Box, something seems to happen. It happened yesterday, the day before and this evening. His colour changes, veins begin to throb and eyes begin to bulge. I understand that Walworth road has purchased a
1086
video, to be used for training purposes, of the explosion that the hon. Gentleman set off during the final stages of the bail statement. I regret that Dr. Jekyll upstairs is replaced by Mr. Hyde down here.
I repeat that the college has undertaken to meet all the demands of local authority fire brigades for training, before accepting applications from the commercial sector. That also answers the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) mentioned consultation.
Mr. Lofthouse rose—
Mr. Patten: I must try to answer the debate in the few minutes that I have left.
I understand that the hon. Member for Makerfield has spoken on those issues at some length in Committee. On consultation, while at an earlier stage the hon. Gentleman is right that a number of the bodies concerned did not like the idea of moving to a trading fund, as the idea has been examined closely, they have been persuaded—so much so that the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Fire Brigades Union and the National Association of Fire Officers and other fire interests were fully consulted about the trading fund proposal and not one raised an objection to the order being made.
The Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales was mentioned. It is correct that it opposed the introduction of direct charging, but once that was introduced in 1991–92, it raised no objections to the college becoming a trading fund, to give it greater flexibility, which it undoubtedly needs.
Mr. Sheerman: How much time did the Minister spend in Moreton-in-Marsh consulting and listening to views and when did he last go there?
Mr. Patten: My right hon. and noble Friend Earl Ferrers in the other place is ministerially responsible for the issues and has carried out consultations on the matters. He has made it clear that, if the AMA and other organisations wish to come to see him to discuss standards at any stage, they will be welcome.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield is gesticulating. You can see the temperature rising, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We can all see the signs coming. I invite him to get to his feet if he wants to intervene again in my speech. He made a serious mistake in attributing to Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services the statement that he objected to the setting up of the trading fund. I have it on the highest authority that the chief inspector supported the move to agency status and to the trading fund.
Mr. Sheerman: I did not say that.
Mr. Patten: When the hon. Gentleman has a look at Hansard tomorrow, he will see that he attributed objections to the inspector of constabulary.
I shall give him the opportunity to intervene to make it quite clear that he does not attribute that to the inspector of fire services.
Mr. Sheerman: The Minister of State is misinterpreting what I said. I said that Her Majesty's inspector had a whole catalogue of concerns and worries about the current state of the fire service. He will check in Hansard and find that that is true. I am only sad that he and his colleague,

1087
the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), used my remarks to launch an attack on the fire service and on the police service—on their sickness record and their public holiday working period.
Mr. Patten: We shall look carefully at the record and listen to the tapes, and if Hansard records that which I believe the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, I hope that he will write to Her Majesty's inspector to withdraw his assertion, because it is a serious matter.
The demand for college places is already good. There are firm bookings for more than 18,000 student weeks in the 1992–93 course, and that augurs well for the success of the trading fund in the first year, despite what the hon. Member for Huddersfield said.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about Buckinghamshire. The Buckinghamshire fire authority has already booked 153 student weeks for 1992–93, which is a satisfactory level.
The chief executive post will be filled after open competition when it next becomes vacant. Home Office Ministers will naturally ensure that fire service needs are fully taken into account when determining levels of public expenditure. That is why there was a 16 per cent. increase this year and why there will be an 8·4 per cent. increase next year.
The order is a classic example of obtaining better value for money for the taxpayer and the community charge payer. A vote against it is a vote in favour of charging fire authorities higher prices for training. Those who vote against the order will lay extra burdens on local fire authorities. I commend this excellent and far-reaching measure to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 68.

Division No. 102]

[11.56 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Amess, David

Favell, Tony

Arbuthnot, James

Forman, Nigel

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Beggs, Roy

Gregory, Conal

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Bowis, John

Harris, David

Brazier, Julian

Hawkins, Christopher

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hayward, Robert

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

Hind, Kenneth

Burt, Alistair

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Carrington, Matthew

Hunter, Andrew

Carttiss, Michael

Irvine, Michael

Cash, William

Jack, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Chope, Christopher

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Couchman, James

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

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

Lightbown, David

1088

Lord, Michael

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Summerson, Hugo

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thurnham, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Waller, Gary

Neubert, Sir Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Nicholls, Patrick

Wells, Bowen

Norris, Steve

Wheeler, Sir John

Paice, James

Widdecombe, Ann

Patten, Rt Hon John

Wilkinson, John

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Shaw, David (Dover)

Winterton, Nicholas

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wood, Timothy

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stern, Michael

Mr. Tim Boswell and

Stevens, Lewis

Mr. Irvine Patrick.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Barron, Kevin

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Battle, John

Kilfoyle, Peter

Benton, Joseph

Leadbitter, Ted

Boyes, Roland

Livsey, Richard

Bradley, Keith

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Callaghan, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

McCartney, Ian

Clelland, David

McMaster, Gordon

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Corbett, Robin

Meale, Alan

Cryer, Bob

Michael, Alun

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Morgan, Rhodri

Cunningham, Dr John

O'Brien, William

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

O'Hara, Edward

Dixon, Don

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Primarolo, Dawn

Edwards, Huw

Quin, Ms Joyce

Enright, Derek

Rooney, Terence

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Sheerman, Barry

Flynn, Paul

Skinner, Dennis

Foster, Derek

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Foulkes, George

Stott, Roger

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Graham, Thomas

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Wilson, Brian

Hardy, Peter

Winnick, David

Haynes, Frank

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Henderson, Doug

Wray, Jimmy

Hinchliffe, David

Hoyle, Doug

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Mr. Eric Illsley and

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Fire Service College Trading Fund Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 1lth February, be approved.

ESTIMATES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee)
That this House agrees with the Report [24th February] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.

Mr. Michael Birkett
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
12.6 am
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Let me first set the scene. I introduce on the one hand my constituent, Mr. Michael Birkett, and on the other hand that august body, the Law Society; and I invoke the lay observer as an impartial referee—more precisely, the 16th annual report of the lay observer 1990. Those are the main characters in the saga that I want to describe.
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for being here to reply. I am fully aware —and I stress this—that he cannot comment on Michael Birkett's specific case and his long-running dispute with the Law Society. 1 neither ask nor expect him to do so. I draw a specific case to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend and the House in a desire to promote a brief debate on the wider issues that emanate from it.
I raise the case for two further reasons. I hope that by so doing I will increase awareness outside the House of the particular injustice that my constituent suffered, and perhaps contribute to its resolution. I hope also that tonight's debate will play a part—albeit only a small part —in persuading the Law Society that it must put its own house in order. I contend that the society's failure to do so significantly contributes to the public's growing lack of confidence in the legal profession and in the process of justice. Those are undesirable trends, and they should be put right.
In 1974, Michael Birkett became involved in litigation. The solicitor acting for him was a certain Mr. Brian Fulwell of Fulwell and Partners, Bristol. Michael Birkett received from Mr. Fulwell a series of unwarranted demands for unwarranted sums of money. They were accompanied by threats not to represent Mr. Birkett at imminent, prearranged court proceedings. In indignation, my constituent complained to the Law Society. He was right to do so.
Even in 1974, the Law Society must have known—and most certainly should have known—that Fulwell and Partners was guilty of misconduct in its submission of interim bills. Eventually, the outcome of litigation entirely exonerated my constituent: each of his allegations was substantiated.
It is remarkable that the process of litigation should have lasted 12 years. During that time, and as a result of the drawn-out process of litigation, my constituent suffered—I use the legal phrase—loss, distress and humiliation. I strongly contend that none of it would have happened if the Law Society had properly investigated the allegations of misconduct, and properly adjudicated the consequences of its own shortcomings. I further contend that the Law Society should have mounted a proper and prompt investigation of the allegations.
Let me now turn to the subject of the Law Society, and refer specifically to the standards that it should set and should demand from solicitors. Addressing the Law Society's conference in October 1991, the president, Mr. Philip Ely, warned that the future of the solicitor's profession and its integrity were threatened, because the society protected the inefficient and dishonest solicitor—a noble and bold sentiment for him to express.
1090
I invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to consider a simple proposition. In the civil courts, it is the solicitor who provides the point of access for the citizen to the administration of justice and the process of law. It is, moreover, the quality of the service provided by the solicitor that largely determines that quality of justice that the citizen will subsequently receive. The solicitor has always been the most frequent advocate in the lower courts, and recently he has been given the right to a wider audience in higher courts. The solicitor is an officer of the court.
The integrity and competence of the court's officers are fundamental to the quality and reputation of justice. It is the statutory duty of the Law Society to set and maintain standards that are acceptable to the profession and the public. I have no doubt that a large majority of solicitors serve their clients and the courts with competence and integrity; however, the point that has rightly alarmed the Law Society is that a significant number of solicitors do not have acceptable standards.
Evidence is provided by the claims made on the compensation fund for losses resulting from the activities of dishonest and defaulting solicitors. They rose from £6–7 million in 1988 to £14·6 million in 1989, and to £18–3 million in 1990. The number of complaints to the Law Society about solicitors rose from 5,000 in 1977 to 9,000 in 1985, and to a record 18,000 in 1987. Since then, there have been more than 16,000 each year.
An inquiry in the late 1970s followed the highly publicised dispute between Mr. Leslie Parsons, a business man, and his solicitor, Mr. Glanville Davies, a senior member of the council of the Law Society. In due course, the inquiry reported:
"We have found administrative failings, mistakes, wrong decisions, errors of judgement, failures in communication, high-handedness and insensitivity on a scale that must have done great harm to the Law Society. The whole episode is a disgrace to the Law Society."
There could scarcely be a more damning verdict.
In the past decade there have, of course, been successive improvements in the system for handling complaints against solicitors. In due course the Solicitors Complaints Bureau emerged, but it is not apparent that the Law Society has effected sufficient improvements in the overall standards of the profession. As I shall shortly argue, the society seeks to treat the symptoms but not the disease. Unless proper standards are enforced and while the society, either advertently or inadvertently, protects the dishonest and incompetent solicitor, there can only be further and increasing defaults among solicitors.
The remedy is not the one put forward by the president at the Law Society conference last October. Among other points, Mr. Philip Ely suggested that the profession should re-examine the practice of compensating for dishonesty, wherever and however caused. It is entirely unacceptable that the profession should ask for a reduction in the degree of protection afforded to those who use its services.
Next I turn to the lay observer's report. The 16th annual report of the lay observer, 1990, was, coincidentally, laid before the House a year ago today. It makes alarming reading. There are two themes that I wish to select. First, the report indicates that the professional standards of the Law Society itself remain unacceptably low. They appear not to have risen above the low tide mark that the society's own inquiry exposed in the Parsons-Davies case in the late 1970s. Secondly, it appears

1091
from the report that the society may already have embarked unofficially on the policy suggested by its president—namely, of reducing the amount of cover for the public through the statutory compensation fund. The case of my constituent, Michael Birkett, illustrates both points.
To expand, first, on the society's standards, paragraphs 63 to 75 comment on the Law Society's handling of my constituent's complaint. The society and the bureau took 16 years to complete their investigation. The lay observer rightly sees this as a matter of great concern and serious criticism. Paragraph 69 reads:
"In my report of August 1990 I expressed great concern and seriously criticised the Law Society/Bureau for the fact that it took 16 years to deal with BI's"—
the initials of my constituent—"complaints."
The society, on the other hand, does not see the delay as a matter for concern or regret. It has produced a series of excuses to justify its delay in investigating a solicitor who was eventually imprisoned for defrauding 26 other clients in the meantime. The Law Society might not have taken any action, even to this day, were it not for the prior action of a third party who forced the solicitor's insolvency.
An analysis of the detail of the report finds the society and/or the bureau culpable of no fewer than 24 instances of error, omission, perversity, prejudice and dereliction of duty. Among these was the loss or destruction of files containing the first eight years' correspondence and records. The society made no attempt to obtain copies of the missing letters from my constituent. To this day it has made no efforts to obtain copies. It proceeded to determine the complaint without them.
In his more detailed report of August 1990 the lay observer lists more than a dozen serious allegations of misconduct, none of which, he concluded, the Law Society ever properly considered. Is the society simply guilty of gross incompetence and disdain for duty, or could it be that it is trying to avoid financial consequences which would otherwise fall on its compensation and indemnity provisions? The society knows full well that proper consideration of Michael Birkett's complaint would result in another rightful and substantial claim on its funds.
That leads to the second point of my concern about the lay observer's report. The Law Society's reducing financial responsibility for dishonest and incompetent solicitors is a matter of concern. I stress that that is not the perception and experience of my constituent; the lay observer makes the same point. In paragraph 143 he records his concern that the society has imposed its own restrictions on access to the fund so as to deny clients some of the protection which the statutory funds should be providing.
The lay observer shares my constituent's belief that the Law Society is already operating an unofficial policy designed to reduce liability to meet in full the proper claims made on it for compensation.
The threat to the future of the solicitors' profession will not be countered by the president's proposition to the Law Society's conference last October. He said, as reported in The Daily Telegraph of 18 October last year, that it is
"time for the profession to examine afresh that it would pay for dishonesty wherever and however caused."
I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend cannot comment on the individual case of Michael Birkett.
1092
I invite him, however, to consider its wider implications, and from the particular to consider the general. As the lay observer reports, the case of Michael Birkett illustrates that all is not well with the administration of justice and the process of law. The erosion of public confidence parallels the erosion of the standards and the example set by the Law Society. I suggest that the two are related. The Law Society must put its own house in order, or it must be put into order, so that others do not experience what Michael Birkett has experienced.
12.22 am
The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on having secured this Adjournment debate for the purpose of referring to this most disturbing case. My hon. Friend has spoken the more effectively for his refusal to spice his speech with adjectives, since he was dealing with an investigation of a solicitor's alleged misconduct that itself extended over 16 years. Since that was the case, his self-restraint was indeed deserving of reward. As I say, I think his speech was much the more effective by reason of it.
It is entirely right that he should have drawn attention, as he has done, in this context to the lay observer's 16th report. I agree entirely with what he has said about the great importance of the legal profession attracting, and deserving to attract, the confidence of the public. I will have something to say later about the privilege of self-regulation. My hon. Friend's speech was further tempered by realism in that he acknowledged—and I am grateful for it—that I cannot myself achieve redress for his constituent, Mr. Birkett.
The solicitors' profession is entirely independent and self-regulating. The professional practice, conduct and discipline of solicitors are regulated by statute, as are the rights to practise as a solicitor. Parliament therefore has an opportunity to discuss the statutory regulation of the Law Society whenever any changes are sought to the present arrangements.
The lay observer, to whom my hon. Friend has referred, was established by the Solicitors Act 1974 to examine allegations made by members of the public concerning the society's treatment of complaints about solicitors. Over the years that followed, it became apparent that the existence of that office by itself was not proving to be a sufficient spur to the profession to improve its procedures for dealing swiftly and effectively with alleged failures in professional competence. The Government's White Paper entitled, "Legal Services: A Framework for the Future", published in 1989, accordingly recommended that the lay observer should be replaced by a legal services ombudsman with increased powers.
One of the matters on which the Government expressed particular concern was the problem identified by the lay observer in his report on Mr. Birkett's case. In that case, he had criticised the policy of the professional purposes department, as it then was, of the Law Society and subsequently of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, which was its successor, not to investigate complaints if there was litigation in prospect or in progress.
The Master of the Rolls indicated in 1987 that this policy could be unsatisfactory and produce unfair results.

1093
He said:
"It is only if there is a risk that the investigation of misconduct will in some way muddy the waters of justice … that the Solicitors Complaints Bureau should, in my judgment, refrain from investigating a case for misconduct".
The bureau has since changed its policy. I understand that the practice now is, wherever possible, to investigate complaints straight away where the matters complained of are the subject of court proceedings, whatever the cause of the litigation, including allegations of negligence by a solicitor. The bureau's case workers were notified of this policy change. In addition, a complainant who has been informed that his case will not be investigated while associated litigation is pending may seek to have that decision reviewed. I will be interested to see if the ombudsman comments on the operation of the revised policy in his annual report. I recognise that, unfortunately, this change in policy has come too late to benefit Mr. Birkett.
The new statutory office of legal services ombudsman was subsequently created by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The ombudsman is completely independent of Government and of the profession. It is a source of encouragement to all of us who share the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke that the first incumbent is a person for whose standing and experience the legal profession has such high regard.
The ombudsman has powers that go beyond those of the old lay observer. He is able to investigate not only the way in which complaints are handled by the relevant professional body but the original complaint. In addition, although the ombudsman would not normally examine a case until the profession's own complaints procedure had been exhausted, he has a discretion to investigate if it appears to him that the professional body's investigation process is being unreasonably delayed. When one considers that Mr. Birkett's original complaint was made in 1974 and the Law Society's final decision was given in 1990, one can see the value of this provision.
The ombudsman is able to refer a complaint back to the professional body with a recommendation that it look at it again. In addition, he has powers to recommend that either the practitioner or the professional body pay compensation to the client. This power is backed up by a publicity sanction under which, where a practitioner or a professional body refuses to comply with the ombudsman's recommendations, the ombudsman can either require them to make public their reasons for not doing so, or he can publicise their non-compliance and recover the costs for so doing from the individual practitioner or from the professional body. These increased powers—I remember debating them in the House nearly two years ago—represent a significant improvement in the way in which the ombudsman is able to investigate individual complaints, and to achieve redress for complainants. In addition, his remit has been extended to cover complaints against barristers and licensed conveyancers. In addition to 14 recommendations to the Solicitors Complaints Bureau that individual cases be reinvestigated, he has made 16 recommendations that compensation should be paid to complainants, for amounts ranging from £200 to £1,500. In one case, the complaints bureau has been required to pay compensation; in the other 15 cases, solicitors have been required to do so.
The ombudsman is uniquely placed to see where procedures may be operating unfairly and to the detriment of complainants. He is accordingly authorised to make
1094
general recommendations to the professional bodies about their complaints handling procedures, as well as to comment on procedures adopted in individual cases. The professional bodies are required by statute to have regard to any such recommendation. That is a significant improvement on what obtained before. I know that, since the White Paper on legal services, much has been done to improve the handling of complaints by the Solicitors Complaints Bureau and by the Law Society to improve and maintain the standard of care accorded to clients. I fear that Mr. Birkett's case vividly shows that there has been scope for that.
The Solicitors Complaints Bureau was set up in 1986 to replace the professional purposes department, which had previously handled complaints about the profession. This earlier arrangement had been criticised by many on the ground that it could not be shown to be sufficiently impartial. The complaints bureau was therefore set up to be independent of the Law Society—a major change—with a lay-dominated investigation committee to monitor its performance. The number of complaints received by the bureau is substantial. In 1990 there were nearly 18,000.
Over the past year, there have been significant changes in the way in which the bureau conducts its work. From 1 April last year, the bureau has been able to order a solicitor to compensate clients for work which is not of an adequate professional standard, up to a limit of £1,000, in addition to taking disciplinary action. In cases of negligence, where the complainant agrees, the bureau can also pass complaints of major negligence direct to the professional insurers, the solicitors indemnity fund. This will obviate the need for complainants in every case of negligence to take legal action. In some cases, particularly where the issue of negligence is disputed, this will still be unavoidable.
The bureau has shifted the emphasis of its work away from the investigation of disciplinary offences, which can be extremely time-consuming, towards conciliation. This informal approach aims to find a solution to the problem which is acceptable both to the client and to the solicitor, and the bureau now has a network of local conciliators who are used in simpler cases. In more complex cases, and where there remain outstanding issues of conduct or inadequate professional services, the bureau's staff will investigate the matter.
On the basis that prevention is better than cure, the Law Society has, from 1 May 1991, required all solicitors' firms to introduce new procedures for handling complaints in-house. In addition, solicitors are required to explain their procedures for handling cases at the outset of a case. The complaints bureau has also introduced a help line for clients rather than for solicitors, to assist complainants who are not certain whether they have a complaint or how to pursue it. I very much hope that these improvements in procedure will help to avoid the recurrence of cases such as Mr. Birkett's or of cases that even approach it.
In his report on Mr. Birkett's case, the lay observer said that it must be a matter of great concern and serious criticism that it took the professional purposes department —and the successor complaints bureau—16 years to reach a conclusion on Mr. Birkett's complaints. It may be enough for me to say tonight that I strongly endorse that opinion.
The Government have since established an entirely new framework, and the legal services ombudsman, with his new and much more effective powers, is now in place and

1095
at work. It is for the professions themselves to ensure that procedures are devised and implemented which fully justify their privilege of self-regulation. That is a valuable privilege. However, if it is to continue, its existence must be
1096
seen to secure the interests not primarily of the profession and its members but of the public whom it is the true purpose of every profession to serve.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to secure the continuing availability of criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts of rural areas in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor is committed to ensuring that criminal legal aid services in the magistrates courts continue to be widely available. In 1990–91 the Legal Aid Board paid 440,000 bills in respect of criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts. In addition to this, just under 230,000 defendants were assisted under the magistrates courts duty solicitor scheme. This commitment extends to all areas of the country and there are no separate provisions for rural areas.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail (Investment)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those investment projects for which British Rail is awaiting his approval; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  On 6 February the British Rail chairman sought authority for investment in 550 fully enclosed car carrying wagons for the import and export of finished cars via the channel tunnel.

  A414, Danbury
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 610–11, what is the latest progress on approving speed limits on the A414 through the village of Danbury; and when approval by his Department is expected to be given.

  Mr. Chope
  We are still waiting to hear from Essex county council concerning various legal issues. I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as I am able to report progress.

ENVIRONMENT

  River Wear (Pollution)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the pollution incidents on the River Wear over the last 10 years; and how many prosecutions were made as a result.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that information on details of reported pollution incidents, or on numbers of prosecutions, is not held centrally by the National Rivers Authority in respect of individual rivers.

  Global Environmental Facility
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting in Geneva on 14 February to review progress made in implementing the global environmental facility; and what commitment has been made by the United Kingdom in terms of(a) financial resources and (b) expertise to the GEF.

  Mr. Baldry
  The focus of the global environment facility—GEF—participants meeting was to discuss the evolution of the GEF and its relationship with the proposed international conventions on climate change and on biodiversity. The meeting was constructive. The GEF chairman has been given a mandate to approach convention negotiations to explain what links could be developed between the GEF and the conventions and to report to the next GEF meeting in April.

  The United Kingdom has committed £40·3 million to the current three-year pilot phase of the GEF for global environmental activities including related expertise.

  House Purchase Discount Schemes
  Mr. Ienon Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that applicants for houses under transferable discount schemes are limited to purchasing private sector property within the areas in which such schemes are operational.

  Mr. Yeo
  No. Cash incentive schemes are aimed at releasing housing in areas of acute housing pressure. Requiring grant recipients to purchase homes within such areas would add to the housing problems of those areas.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the cost of hiring the Queen Elizabeth conference centre for the city challenge press conference held on 18 February.

  Mr. Portillo
  The cost of hiring the Mountbatten suite in the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre for the press launch of round two of city challenge on 18 February was £3,965·00, inclusive of VAT.

  Federation of Associations of Manchester Estates
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations the Minister for Housing and Planning has received from the Federation of Associations of Manchester Estates; what reply is being sent; what action is being taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the right hon. Member on 27 January about Manchester city council's housing investment programme allocation, which is also the subject of a letter dated 6 February received from the Federation of Associations of Manchester Estates. The Department's regional controller in the north-west replied to FAME on 25 February in similar terms.

  North Yorkshire County Council
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the standard spending assessment in 1991–92 for North Yorkshire county council for social services; and what is the figure in 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  The standard spending assessment for personal social services for North Yorkshire county council in 1991–92 is £49·89 million and for 1991–92 will be £52·837 million.

  Marine Consultation Areas
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to issue a consultation paper on marine consultation areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am today issuing a joint consultation paper with the Welsh Office on a new scheme to extend the designation of sites of marine conservation interest in England and Wales beyond the existing statutory marine nature reserves. This new designation is "marine consultation area" and I am publishing a first list of 16 proposed sites together with draft Government guidelines, addressed to regulatory agencies, on the procedures to be adopted in relation to them. Comments are being invited from these regulatory agencies and from others with interests in the localities concerned, the conservation of marine fauna and flora, and the operations likely to be affected. These are to be with the Departments concerned by Wednesday 22 April 1992.

  The scheme acknowledges the important role that statutory marine nature reserves have played, and will continue to play, in promoting marine nature conservation, while recognising that there is a legitimate conservation interest that extends beyond statutory reserves. The sea itself cannot be fenced off and effective protection of areas marine conservation interest requires voluntary co-operation from a wide range of sea users.

  The scheme proposed builds on one already in place in Scotland but goes further by way of a Government circular which gives clear guidelines to promote consultation between all the bodies concerned. A draft of this circular forms the basis of the consultation document.

  All bodies taking decisions that might affect the conservation interest of the listed sites are asked to consult English Nature, or the Countryside Council for Wales as appropriate, at the earliest feasible stage. Any advice offered by the conservation agencies as a result of this consultation is to be given due weight by decision-makers and the conservation agencies are to be told of decisions taken in the light of their advice.

  The scheme is intended to run on an entirely voluntary basis with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee monitoring results in order to determine its effectiveness. Annual reports, which will be made available to the public on request, will be submitted to the Government Departments concerned.

  The 16 sites have been selected on the basis of advice from English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales and include existing and proposed statutory marine nature reserves. A full list indicating area and position is set out as an annex to the circular. Copies of the consultation paper have today been placed in the Library.

  In addition, detailed descriptions of 16 sites, together with maps, are to be published separately in a
  488
  free-standing document entitled "Marine Consultation Areas—A Description". Copies of the latest draft are available from my Department.

  The issue of the consultation paper fulfils the commitment in the White Paper anniversary report "This Common Inheritance—The First Year Report", Cm 1655 —paragraph 5·28, that the Government would publish, on a consultative basis, by early 1992, a first list of proposed marine consultation areas in England and Wales, and draft Government guidelines addressed to regulatory agencies.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the timetable and implementation date of the housing action trusts in Liverpool.

  Sir George Young
  Liverpool city council and tenants of its 71 high-rise blocks have recently pressed us to reach an early decision on whether to proceed to ballot tenants on the proposal for a housing action trust.

  Following careful consideration of the feasibility study prepared by the council, my right hon. Friend has decided that a ballot should be undertaken as soon as practicable and convenient for tenants. I would be content for this to begin on 25 March.

  Liverpool city council's 71 tower blocks currently suffer a range of severe physical, security and managerial problems. Nevertheless, with appropriate investment and management, I believe they can provide an important resource for meeting housing needs and for the foreseeable future. I am fully satisfied that the housing action trust proposal represents the best means of protecting this resource, and improving the housing, environmental and social conditions of tenants.

  Emissions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are in hand to take into consideration the combined, cumulative effects of emissions from projects in the south-east Thames corridor including the Deptford incinerator, the Bexley incinerator and the Greenwich power station when approval for each specific project is being sought separately.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: All current applications for power stations and incinerators in the east Thamesside London boroughs are supported by environmental assessment statements. We are satisfied that existing arrangements for considering such applications can provide for appropriate account to be taken of the environmental effects of other developments in the vicinity of the one that is under consideration.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete the current review of legislation affecting mobile home owners.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 25 February 1992]: I shall be announcing proposals in the very near future.

HEALTH

  Charitable Appeals
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by region the location of computer-assisted tomography scanners and magnetic resonance machines that were funded by charitable appeals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The source of funding is not always known centrally. The available information on cases when all or part of the purchase is said to have come from appeals or donations is as follows:

  1. Magnetic resonance machines

  REGION AND LOCATION

  North-West Thames

  Royal Postgraduate Medical School

  National Heart and Chest Hospital

  Mount Vernon Hospital

  Royal Marsden Hospital

  St. Mary's Hospital

  North-East Thames

  National Hospital for Nervous Diseases

  The Hospitals for Sick Children

  Royal Free Hospital

  Middlesex Hospital

  South Western

  Frenchay Hospital

  East Anglia

  Addenbrooke's Hospital

  Oxford

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital

  John Radcliffe Hospital

  Royal Berkshire Hospital

  South West Thames

  Royal Surrey County Hospital

  Trent

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital

  2. Computer-assisted Tomography Scanners

  REGION AND LOCATION

  Northern

  Cumberland Infirmary

  Newcastle General

  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle

  South Cleveland Hospital, Middlesbrough

  Bishop Auckland General Hospital

  Sunderland District General Hospital

  Yorkshire

  Bradford Royal Infirmary

  Royal Halifax Infirmary

  Staincliffe Hospital,

  Dewsbury Harrogate District Hospital

  The Royal Infirmary, Huddersfield

  York District Hospital

  Trent

  Kings Mill Hospital, Mansfield

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital

  Lincoln County Hospital

  Nottingham City

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital

  Pilgrim Hospital, Boston

  Derby Royal Infirmary

  East Anglia

  James Paget Hospital, Great Yarmouth

  Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Huntingdon

  Peterborough Hospitals

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kings Lynn

  490

  West Suffolk Hospital, Bury St. Edmunds

  North West Thames

  Mount Vernon

  St. Mary's Hospital, London

  Westminster Hospital

  Watford District General Hospital, Hertfordshire

  The Royal Marsden Hospital, Riverside

  North East Thames

  Essex County Hospital

  Princess Alexandra Hospital

  The National Hospitals, Queens Square

  Great Ormond Street Hospital, Bloomsbury

  South East Thames

  Royal Sussex, Brighton

  Farnborough Hospital

  Guy's Hospital

  The Maudsley Hospital (Lewisham District)

  South West Thames

  Worthing Hospital

  The Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton

  Wessex

  Basingstoke District Hospital

  Bournemouth General Hospital

  Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham

  Oxford

  Kettering General Hospital

  Northampton General Hospital

  Royal Berkshire Hospital

  South Western

  Bristol Radiology and Oncology Centre

  Cheltenham General Hospital

  Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro

  Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital

  Yeovil District Hospital

  Southmead Hospital, Bristol

  West Midlands

  The Corbett Hospital, Stourbridge

  Good Hope Hospital

  North Staffordshire R. I., Stoke-On-Trent

  Midland Centre for Neuro, Smethwick

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, Shrewsbury

  Children's Hospital

  Burton District Hospital Centre

  Worcester R. I., Ronkswood Branch

  Mersey

  Whiston Hospital

  Clatterbridge Hospital

  North Western

  Blackburn R. I.

  Victoria Hospital, Blackpool

  Bury General Hospital

  Royal Lancaster Infirmary

  Booth Hall Child Hospital, Blackley

  Christie Hospital

  Tameside General Hospital

  Health Service Pay
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the national health service, and at which grades, he expects to earn more than £20,280 per annum following the recent pay review body report.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 5 February at column 207. Following the recent pay review body awards, it is now estimated that on 1 April 1992 at least 83,000 people working in the NHS in England, and in the same categories listed in the earlier reply, will have basic earnings greater than £20,280 per annum. An additional and substantial number in most of those categories will have gross earnings in excess of £20,280, because they receive additional payments such as

  Prescription charge £

  Date of increase

  Cost at1979–80 prices £

  Index1979–80 prices

  0·20

  Current at 1 January 1979

  0·20

  100

  0·45

  16 July 1979

  0·45

  225

  0·70

  1 April 1980

  0·59

  295

  1·00

  1 December 1980

  0·85

  425

  1·30

  1 April 1982

  0·94

  470

  1·40

  1 April 1983

  0·96

  480

  1·60

  1 April 1984

  1·05

  525

  2·00

  1 April 1985

  1·25

  625

  2·20

  1 April 1986

  1·32

  660

  2·40

  1 April 1987

  1·37

  685

  2·60

  1 April 1988

  1·38

  690

  2·80

  1 April 1989

  1·40

  700

  3·05

  1 April 1990

  1·40

  700

  3·40

  1 April 1991

  1·46

  730

  GP Lists
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the present procedures whereby medical doctors can remove patients from their panel list without being required to give any reason; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since the foundation of the NHS, a GP has had a right (subject to certain safeguards as regards necessary treatment) to remove a patient from his or her list without giving a reason. With effect from April 1990 patients have had the same right to withdraw from a doctor's list without giving a reason. The Family Health Service Authority will help any patient who has problems in finding another doctor, and, if necessary, will allocate the patient to a doctor's list.

  Insulin
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, column 544, to the hon. Member for Ashford, (Mr. Speed), when he hopes to provide needles for insulin-injecting pens on prescription for diabetics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I cannot add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford on 27 November 1991 at column 544.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received(a) in
  492
  overtime and allowances. The review body award for senior nurses and midwives, and pay settlements due on 1 April will further increase the numbers earning more than £20,280.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of prescription charges for each year since 1979 in cash terms, real terms and as an index with 1979 as the base.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The requested information is in the table. Only one in six prescription items dispensed in the NHS now attracts a charge, compared with one in three in 1979. Last year over 100 million more exempt items were dispensed than in 1979.

  favour of and (b) against issuing needles for insulin-injecting pens on prescription to diabetics during the current session; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a number of representations in favour of issuing needles for insulin-injecting pens on prescription during the current session. We aim to make both pens and needles available on prescription as soon as resources allow.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of cases of Legionnaire's disease at each provider unit and trust since April 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1991 three cases of Legionnaire's disease were reported in residents of England and Wales in patients who were believed to have acquired their infection in hospital. The three cases were reported from the Freeman group of hospitals NHS trust site at Freeman Road hospital, Newcastle, and the illness in the cases began in June, July and October respectively. There were 10 other cases reported in England and Wales which may have been contracted in hospital, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the source was in hospital or in the community.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the communicable disease surveillance centre is preparing a report on the recent outbreak of Legionnaire's disease at the Freeman hospital trust, Newcastle.
  493
  Mr. Dorrell
  The public health laboratory service (PHLS) communicable disease surveillance centre was not involved in the investigation of this incident and will therefore not be preparing a report.

  Pharmacy
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the introduction of a statutory requirement for pharmacists to inform customers when a medication is cheaper by normal retail sale than by prescription; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Only a small number of items prescribed by GPs can be bought without a prescription. Where these are available at a price less than the prescription charge, the pharmacist is, of course, free to point this out. There are no plans to make this a statutory requirement.

  General Practitioner Charges
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the introduction of charges for visits to and by general practitioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no such plans.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of prescriptions given to adults of less than pensionable age result in the payment of the prescription charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  An estimated 40 per cent. of prescription items dispensed to adults below the state retirement pension age attract a charge. Extensive exemption and charge remission arrangements, coupled with the prescription prepayment certificate scheme, protect those people who may otherwise have difficulty in paying prescription charges. In 1990–91 a charge was paid on only one item in six dispensed in the NHS and 100 million more items were dispensed free than in 1979, when one item in three attracted a charge.

  Table 1

  Number of residential care places primarily for the elderly, by sector, and housing association stock for the elderly in the North Yorkshire local authority 1987–91

  Numbers

  Housing Association

  As at 31 March

  Local authority homes

  Voluntary homes

  Private homes

  Housing units1

  Hostel bedspaces2

  1987

  2,004

  603

  2,893

  1,330

  280

  1988

  1,984

  562

  3,202

  1,370

  360

  1989

  1,952

  626

  3,314

  1,580

  320

  1990

  1,876

  582

  3,350

  1,580

  350

  1991

  1,823

  648

  3,413

  2,120

  380

  1 Housing units—Total number of units in schemes designed for the elderly. The units are self contained dwelling units and units in shared housing with no warden support. In the latter case, one unit is a group of rooms sharing facilities.

  2 Hostel bedspaces—Bedspaces in hostels catering exclusively for the elderly. A hostel is a building containing single or shared rooms which are not self contained and which has warden support. Nursing homes are excluded.

  Community Care Reforms
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government are doing to help local authorities make the investment in information technology necessary to support its community care reforms.

  Non-alcoholic Drinks
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had on the promotion of non-alcoholic drinks.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have had a number of informal meetings with the Portman Group and with some of its sponsor companies about how the sensible use of alcohol might be encouraged, in the course of which the promotion of non-alcoholic drinks has been discussed. At recent conferences "Women and Alcohol" in December 1991 and the "Education on Alcohol" conference this month, not only were non-alcoholic drinks advertised but they were the only drinks available.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received on the closure of residential care homes run by North Yorkshire county council in(a) Whitby and (b) Harrogate;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning residential places for the elderly in the North Yorkshire county council area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No such representations have been received. It is for each local authority to determine the best way in which to meet the need for social services in their area, including residential care.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places in residential care establishments in North Yorkshire were available in each of the last five years(a) under the management of North Yorkshire county council, (b) in the voluntary sector, (c) under the management of housing associations and (d) with other owners.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information in respect of elderly people is given in the table.

  Overall residential care provision for elderly people in North Yorkshire increased from 5,500 in 1987 to 5,884 in 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are committed to turning our community care policy into practice. We are making £10·175 million available through supplementary credit approval for capital spending in 1992–93 on information technology to support the implementation of "Caring For People". This allocation is more than double that for
  495
  1991–92. Local authorities will be free to use their allocation on systems to support any of the various aspects of "Caring For People". These may include systems to support care management and assessment, systems to enable complaints and inspection procedures, project planning and management systems and software to link existing databases with new financial management systems.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(a) black, and (b) disabled.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The total number of staff in post in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office including the Overseas Development Administration at 1 April 1991 was 8,277. In voluntary surveys 181 had declared themselves to be of ethnic minority origin. At 1 June 1991 the FCO employed 49 registered disabled staff.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii), CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The latest available figures for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration, are as follows:

  Grade (and Equivalents)

  Male

  Female

  1

  8

  —

  2

  31

  —

  3

  121

  6

  4

  1

  —

  5

  329

  14

  6

  99

  12

  7

  647

  93

  SEO

  464

  71·5

  HEO

  919

  259

  AT

  218

  20

  EO

  939·5

  764·5

  AO

  1,210

  1,463·5

  AA

  235

  329·5

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the new institutions of the CSCE; and if he will list their forthcoming meetings.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At the meeting of the CSCE Council of Ministers in Prague on 30 and 31 January the CSCE's office for free elections was given broader functions and renamed as the office for democratic institutions and human rights.

  The council also agreed on new functions for the conflict prevention centre; and that the committee of senior officials will henceforth meet more frequently and from time to time as an economic forum.

  These changes which, together with a new programme of CSCE meetings, will be further discussed at the CSCE
  496
  follow-up meeting in Helsinki from 24 March to 10 July 1992, are intended to continue the adaptation of the CSCE to enable it more effectively to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law, to engage in crisis management and conflict resolution and to encourage the transition to market economies.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards Cambodia; and what measures he has taken and proposes to take to promote peace in that country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We support the agreements on a comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodia conflict signed in Paris last October. The United Kingdom played an active part in the negotiations leading up to these agreements. We will continue to work both through the United Nations and bilaterally to ensure that the agreements are implemented fully.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Customs
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans there are to establish a dedicated computerised intelligence network across Europe for the Customs service.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A new customs information system—CIS—is being developed for use across the European Community. It is planned to use the existing system customs enforcement network—SCENT—as a carrier for the CIS, which is being developed in phases.

  The first phase will be in place later this year, and will provide encrypted computer messaging facilities at all main ports and airports in the European Community. A central database will be added to this system in the second phase, providing specific intelligence about potential customs offences, and information on recent smuggling trends. In the light of experience from the first two phases, consideration will be given to enhancing the system to incorporate CIS facilities into national computer systems, with the possibility of eventually establishing a fully integrated system.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the start-up costs of the secure customs enforcement network; and what are its annual running costs since it became operational.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Over the first three years of the system, commencing in 1986, EC Commission spending to launch the system totalled approximately 300,000 ecu. More recent figures from the Commission are not readily obtainable except at disproportionate cost.

  The United Kingdom's Intervention Board executive agency recently installed a terminal at a total cost of £900·71, including first quarter running costs of £55·83.

  Running costs for the Customs and Excise terminal have totaled £4,987·67 from the time of installation in late 1987 to 8 December 1991.

  More recent or detailed figures are not available except at disproportionate cost.
  497
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purpose of the secure customs enforcement network; when it was established; and which authorities have access to the system.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  SCENT was developed in response to increasing needs for exchange of information between customs operational investigation services in the European Community. It has an electronic encrypted mailing system, the facility to send messages to telex machines and it provides access to databases of reference information such as Lloyds Seadata. Initiated by the Commission towards the end of 1986, SCENT became operational from 1987 onwards.

  Access to the system is strictly controlled, and limited to authorised users. Most terminals are used by customs services. Others are allocated to the Commission's directorate general XXI for work on customs questions or movements of drugs precursor chemicals and directorate general VI for common agricultural policy work. The United Kingdom Intervention Board executive agency and its equivalent bodies in other member states have access to the system. The other two users are the International Narcotics Control Board and the United Nations, which has one terminal.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many terminals are connected to the secure Customs enforcement network; and what plans there are to expand access to the system.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are currently 29 terminals in use, two of which are in the United Kingdom. It is planned to increase the total number of terminals to about 200, most of which should be installed by the end of 1992. Of these, 25 should be sited in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many passengers who are United Kingdom citizens returning from Brussels on the 18 February at Heathrow on flight BA 0397 were questioned by Customs and Excise; and what was the result of the questioning.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: I regret that the information requested is not available. Customs at Heathrow deal with large numbers of passengers and passengers from different sources pass through customs controls simultaneously. No record is kept of individual passenger challenges except where seizures or search of person result.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of VAT charged in each other EC country for(a) food in shops, (b) food in restaurants, (c) books, (d) magazines, (e) newspapers, (f) household fuel, (g) rents, (h) house purchase, (i) children's clothing (j) community centres and (k) transport fares.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Rates of VAT charged in each other EC country for food in shops, food in restaurants, books, magazines, newspapers, household fuel, rents, house purchase, children's clothing, community centres and transport fares according to the latest information available, are set out in the tables.
  498

  (a) VAT on food in shops in the EC1

  Country

  Rate percentage

  Belgium

  6·0

  Denmark

  25·0

  France

  5·52

  Germany

  7·0

  Greece

  8·0

  Ireland

  0·03

  Italy

  4·04, 9, 12

  Luxembourg

  3·0,5, 6

  Netherlands

  6·0

  Portugal

  0·06, 8, (6)

  Spain

  6·0

  1 Excluding luxury foods·

  2 With certain exceptions, eg sweets, ice-cream, margarine which are standard-rated at 18·6 per cent.

  3 Alcohol and soft drinks other than fruit juices are liable at 21 per cent· in all circumstances, as is all food and drink supplies through a vending machine.

  4 The lower rate applies to essential foodstuffs such as bread and pasta.12 per cent. applies to lobsters and oysters, lobster and oyster preserve, puffed cereal, extracts and meat juices, sauces, condiments, soups and broths.

  5 The lower rate applies to meat, meat products, bread and butter.

  6 The rate shown in brackets applies to the autonomous regions of the Madeira and Azores archipelagoes· The zero rate applies to unprepared foodstuffs.

  (b) VAT on food in restaurants in the EC

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  17·0

  Denmark

  25·0

  France

  18·6

  Germany

  14·0

  Greece

  18·0

  Ireland

  12·5

  Italy

  19·0

  Luxembourg

  6–0

  Netherlands

  18·5

  Portugal

  28·0, (6)

  Spain

  36·0,13

  Notes:

  1 Excluding the supply of food in luxury premises including luxury hotels.

  2 Lower rates apply in the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira archipelagoes.

  3 The higher rate applies to services supplied in luxury hotels.

  (c) VAT on hooks in the EC

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  6·0

  Denmark

  25·0

  France

  5·5

  Germany

  7·0

  Greece

  4·0

  Ireland

  0·0

  Italy

  4·0

  Luxembourg

  6·0

  Netherlands

  6·0

  Portugal

  0·0

  Spain

  6·0

  (d) VAT on magazines in the EC

  Country

  Rate per cent

  Belgium

  6·0

  Denmark

  25·0

  France

  2·1

  Germany

  7·0

  Greece

  4·0

  Ireland

  10·0

  Italy

  4·0

  499

  Country

  Rate per cent

  Luxembourg

  6·0

  Netherlands

  6·0

  Portugal

  0·0

  Spain

  6·0

  (e) VAT on newspapers in the EC

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  6·0

  Denmark

  0·0

  France

  2·1

  (f) VAT on household fuel in the European Community Rates per cent.

  Country

  Oil

  Gas

  Electricity

  Coal

  Peat

  Wood

  Belgium

  17·0

  17·0

  17·0

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  Denmark

  25·0

  25·0

  25·0

  25·0

  25·0

  25·0

  France

  18·6

  5·5

  5·5

  18·6

  18·6

  18·6

  Germany

  14·0

  14·0

  14·0

  14·0

  14·0

  7·0

  Greece

  1

  1

  1

  8·0

  8·0

  8·0

  Ireland

  12·5

  12·5

  12·5

  12·5

  12·5

  12·5

  Italy

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  Luxembourg

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  Netherlands

  18·5

  18·5

  18·5

  18·5

  18·5

  18·5

  Portugal2

  (6·0)8·0

  (6·0)8·0

  (6·0)8·0

  (6·0)8·0

  (6·0)8·0

  (6·0)8·0

  Spain

  13·0

  13·0

  13·0

  13·0

  13·0

  13·0

  1 Greece has set its VAT at 4, 8, 18 and 36 per cent., but full details about the applicability of the rates are not yet available.

  2 The lower rate applies to the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira Archipelagoes.

  (g) VAT on rents in the EC
  The letting of immovable property is exempt from VAT in every member state, although some member states operate an option to tax in certain circumstances.

  (h)VA T on house purchase in the EC

  Country

  Rates on new buildings (per cent.)

  Rate on second hand buildings (per cent.)

  Belgium

  17·0

  Exempt

  Denmark

  25·0

  Exempt

  France

  18·6

  Exempt

  Germany

  Exempt

  Exempt

  Greece

  1Taxable

  Exempt

  Ireland

  10·0

  2Exempt

  Italy

  34·0, 19

  4, 19

  Luxembourg

  Exempt

  Exempt

  Netherlands

  18·5

  Exempt

  Portugal

  Exempt

  Exempt

  Spain

  4130

  Exempt

  1 Greece has set its VAT rates at 4,8,18 and 36 per cent., but full details about the applicability of the not yet available

  2 Or 10 per cent, if developed since 31 October 1972 and input tax credit was claimed

  4 Certain "low-priced" housing 4 per cent.; others 19 per cent.

  4 Or 6 per cent, if the first supply by a constructor of a residential dwelling.

  (i) VAT on children's clothing in the EC

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  19·0

  Denmark

  25·0

  France

  18·6

  Germany

  14·0

  Greece

  18·0

  Ireland

  212·5

  Italy

  19·0

  Luxembourg

  15·0

  Netherlands

  18·5

  Portugal

  117·0 (12)

  Spain

  13·0

  Notes:

  500

  Country

  Rate per cent·

  Germany

  7·0

  Greece

  4·0

  Ireland

  10·0

  Italy

  4·0

  Luxembourg

  6·0

  Netherlands

  6·0

  Portugal

  0·0

  Spain

  6·0

  1 The lower rate applies in the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira archipelagoes.

  1 To be increased to 16 per cent. on 1 March 1992.

  (j) VA T on community centres in the EC
  Leasing of such buildings is exempt in all member states. For purchase (including construction), in other member states, the rates in the table "VAT on house purchase in the EC" apply.

  (k) VAT on public transport (including bus fares) in the EC

  Country

  Rate (per cent.)

  Belgium

  6·0

  Denmark

  Exempt

  France

  5·5

  Germany

  17·0

  Greece

  8·0

  Ireland

  Exempt

  Italy

  1Exempt

  Luxembourg

  6·0

  Netherlands

  6·0

  Portugal

  8·0

  Spain

  6·0

  1 For journeys within towns or of less than 50 kilometres; otherwise Germany 14 per cent., Italy 9 per cent.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, in the latest year for which information is available, is the proportion of consumer spending subject to the standard rate of VAT, exempt from VAT and subject to a zero rate of VAT.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In 1990, the latest year for which estimates are available, some 57 per cent. of consumers' expenditure was standard rated, a further 22 per cent. was exempt and 12 per cent. was zero rated.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimates of(a) original, (b) gross, (c) disposable and (d) post-tax income, by decile, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  The information, derived from the 1989 family expenditure survey, is given in the table:

  Average annual household income1

  Decile group2

  Original income

  Gross income

  Disposable income

  Post-tax Income

  Bottom

  1,000

  4,100

  3,400

  2,200

  2nd

  1,600

  5,200

  4,500

  3,400

  3rd

  2,800

  6,200

  5,300

  4,100

  4th

  6,700

  9,400

  7,800

  5,900

  5th

  10,100

  12,100

  9,800

  7,500

  6th

  13,000

  14,600

  11,700

  9,100

  7th

  16,200

  17,500

  13,800

  11,000

  8th

  19,600

  20,500

  16,100

  12,900

  9th

  23,700

  24,400

  19,100

  15,400

  Top

  36,400

  37,000

  28,900

  24,800

  All households

  13,100

  15,100

  12,000

  9,600

  1 Rounded to the nearest £100.

  2 The 7,410 households were ranked by equivalised disposable income.

  Source: Economic Trends January 1992.

  Motor Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total revenue from motor taxation in 1991–92; and what is his estimated revenue for 1992–93 divided into its constituent parts, for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on 4 February 1992, at column 100. Revised estimates for 1991–92, and figures for 1992–93 will be given in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Alcoholic Beverages
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the European Commission study on the possible distortion of competition between different alcoholic beverages as a result of the proposed European excise structure.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 21 February 1992]: I have not been advised of a date for publication of the Commission study.

  Income Tax
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the objective of the married couples allowance; and what assessment he has made of the effect of the married couples allowance for couples where both partners have the same level of gross income.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1992]: The married couple's allowance is intended to recognise the special responsibilities associated with marriage, which can encompass a variety of dependent relationships. The effect of the allowance is the same whatever the relative level of income of the partners, provided they earn enough to make use of their allowances.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review the application form for disability living allowance with a view to making it shorter and less complicated.

  Mr. Hanley
  The form has been carefully designed to be both clear to the applicant and to allow applicants to explain fully the limitations on their abilities. It will, however, be kept under review to enable improvements to be identified and made as and when necessary.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what consultation took place with general medical practitioners or welfare advice groups during the preparation of the application forms for the disability living allowance;

  (2) what evaluations or tests of the application forms for disability living allowance were made prior to their publication.

  Mr. Hanley
  Extensive consultation was carried out in Great Britain and Northern Ireland before the final version of the disability living allowance application form was determined. This included consultation with the British Medical Association and various disability and welfare groups and the testing of draft forms with disabled people. The resulting form has been specifically designed for completion by disabled people, with clear layout and large print.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken by the Social Security Agency to appoint equality officers to ensure that fair employment legislation and sex discrimination legislation is being adhered to in relation to all staff appointments.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland are responsible for the selection of all permanent non-industrial staff appointed to the Northern Ireland civil service, including the Social Security Agency. The selection procedures adopted take account of equal opportunity legislation. The Department of Health and Social Services, within which the agency operates, has in place a departmental equal opportunities officer to ensure that the equal opportunities policies of the NICS are put into effect.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken by the area health and social services boards to appoint equality officers to ensure that fair employment and sex discrimination legislation is being adhered to in relation to all staff appointments.

  Mr. Hanley
  An equal opportunities unit has been established in each health and social services board since 1988. The primary responsibility of these units is to ensure that equality of opportunity policy of their board is applied to all staff regardless of religious affiliation, gender or disability. These units are also responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the fair employment legislation are applied to all staff.
  503
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to ensure that persons involved in interview panels in the area health and social services boards are adequately briefed about employment legislation to ensure equality under the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989 and the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1988.

  Mr. Hanley
  Each of the health and social services boards organises courses and seminars for staff involved in selection and appointments to ensure its policy of equality of opportunity is applied regardless of religious affiliation, gender or disability and to explain how the provisions of the fair employment legislation apply to staff in post and to applicants and appointees.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to publish the religious breakdown of companies, organisations and businesses in accordance with requirements of the fair employment legislation.

  Mr. Needham
  The Fair Employment Commission has made public its intention to publish information on the composition of individual private sector concerns with more than 25 employees and specified public authorities. The date and manner of publication have not yet been decided.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Fair Employment Commission will publish its report into employment practices in the colleges of further education located within the Belfast education and library board.

  Mr. Needham
  The Fair Employment Commission has forwarded a draft report of its investigation into teaching staff in further education colleges in Belfast to the Belfast education and library board. The board's formal response is awaited by the commission.

  The commission plans to publish the report when this response has been received and considered.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of the companies assisted by the Industrial Development Board which located factories in each of the district council areas in Northern Ireland from 1 April 1991 to 31 December 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  Four new inward investment projects were secured in this period. Three of them, Vision Information Consulting Ltd., Audio Processing Technology Ltd. and the Royal Mail returned letters centre, will be located in Belfast city council area. The fourth, involving HM Customs and Excise, will be located in Derry city and Fermanagh district council areas. The Royal Mail and HM Customs and Excise projects were secured without selective financial assistance.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs were created by the Industrial Development Board in each district council area in Northern Ireland from 1 April 1991 to 31 December 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  Information in terms of jobs created is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. The number of new jobs promoted in the period, by district council area, is shown in the table.
  504

  Jobs promoted by IDB in Northern Ireland in each local government area from 1 April to 31 December 1991

  Number of jobs

  Antrim

  —

  Ards

  103

  Armagh

  —

  Ballymena

  50

  Ballymoney

  57

  Banbridge

  29

  Belfast

  412

  Carrickfergus

  —

  Castlereagh

  84

  Coleraine

  50

  Cookstown

  —

  Craigavon

  616

  Derry

  48

  Down

  —

  Dungannon

  11

  Fermanagh

  12

  Lame

  25

  Limavady

  —

  Lisburn

  125

  Magherafelt

  —

  Moyle

  —

  Newry & Mourne

  —

  Newtownabbey

  —

  North Down

  54

  Omagh

  —

  Strabane

  —

  Total

  1,676

  DOE Liaison Office, Killyleagh
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will issue a statement in relation to the siting of a Department of the Environment liaison office at Killyleagh, County Down.

  Mr. Needham
  Following a detailed process of consultation the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland recently issued a statement on the management structure for Strangford Lough. This statement made it clear that the location of the liaison office would be a matter for the Strangford Lough management committee which is now being set up.

  Income Support
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many claimants in receipt of income support were having deductions made for(a) social fund loans, (b) fuel costs, (c) in respect of assumed rent and rate contributions from other members of the household and (d) other deductions on 1 January at each social security agency in Northern Ireland; and what were the figures on 1 January 1991 and 1 January 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social Security operational matters are the responsibility of Mr. Alec Wylie, chief executive of the Social Security Agency. He will write to the hon. Gentleman and copies of his reply will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Strangford Lough
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will issue the draft order in respect of the management of Strangford Lough.

  Mr. Needham
  The proposals relating to the establishment of a management structure for Strangford
  505
  Lough included in the Departments' recently produced statement do not require the making of an order to bring them into effect.

  Social Security (Deductions)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many claimants were having(a) one deduction made, (b) two deductions made and (c) three deductions or more made on 1 January at each social security office in Northern Ireland; and what were the figures on 1 January 1991 and 1 January 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social Security operational matters are the responsibility of Mr. Alec Wylie, chief executive of the Social Security Agency. However, I understand that the information is not held centrally and therefore cannot be supplied on grounds of disproportionate cost.

  Under-fives
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce an under-fives initiative in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The report of an interdepartmental review of policy and services for the under-fives is expected later this year. As part of its work, the group conducting the review has commissioned research aimed at quantifying the demand for provision for the under-fives and at improving the information available on the needs and preferences of parents and children. Work is also well advanced on the preparation of a draft children (NI) order. This, among other things, will provide a clearer legislative framework for the development of services for the under-fives and will strengthen procedures for the regulation of day care services, bringing them broadly into line with those introduced in the Children Act 1989.

  Messrs Hartstones Ltd
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funds have been made available by the Industrial Development Board in each of the past three years to Messrs Hartstones Ltd. for its Berkshire plant in Newtownards; if the grant-aided plant and machinery is still on site; and if he will make a statement on the redundancies recently announced at this factory.

  Mr. Needham
  In August 1989 the IDB made an offer of assistance of £1,045,200 to Berkshire Hosiery (UK) Ltd., a subsidiary of the Hartstone Group plc. The assistance was provided to support a major re-equipment project aimed at securing existing employment and the future development of the company.

  Since that time some £809,078 of grant has been paid to Berkshire Hosiery (UK) Ltd.—£205,039 in 1989–90, £550,379 in 1990–91 and £53,660 in 1991–92. No grant was paid directly to the Hartstone Group plc.

  At present all of the grant-aided plant and machinery remains on site.

  I regret the loss of jobs in the hosiery operation which have arisen from overcapacity in the group. The company has indicated to the Industrial Development Board that its activities at Newtownards will be concentrated on its successful sock business.

  HSS Trusts
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many expressions of interest in becoming HSS trusts he has received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Eleven expressions of interest have been received and I have decided to invite all the sponsors to make formal applications to become HSS trusts in April 1993. The services involved are:

  Belfast City Hospital

  Craigavon Area Hospitals Group

  Down and Lisburn Unit of Management

  Eastern Board Ambulance Service

  Green Park Unit of Management

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital

  Newry and Mourne Unit of Management

  North Down and Ards Community Unit

  North and West Belfast Community

  South and East Belfast Community Unit

  Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals Unit

  Training Schemes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the most recent information he has on the destination of people who leave the job training programme; how many leavers got jobs, became unemployed or went on to further training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The most recent information available on the destination of participants leaving the job training programme is for the period 1 April 1991 to 31 December 1991 and is as follows:

  JTP leavers whose destination is known

  Number of people

  Percentage of total

  Found work

  1,279

  42

  Unemployed

  1,380

  45

  Further training

  334

  19

  Further education

  67

  2

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors he takes into account before consenting to the short-term letting of agricultural land under section 5 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and how many consents he has granted in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Curry
  Consent to short-term lettings under section 5 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 is granted where it would be unreasonable to expect a landlord to let land on a full agricultural tenancy. The main circumstances which would satisfy this requirement were agreed with the industry and are as follows. Within this broad framework each case is considered according to individual circumstances. The categories outlined are not definitive and applications for consent on other grounds may be considered.

  (a) Land for Development
  When land is likely to go out of use within five to seven years, the compensation payable by the landlord on the termination of a full agricultural tenancy could exceed the amount of rent paid. In these circumstances approval of a short-term letting would normally be justified.
  507
  (b)Reorganisation and transitional arrangements
  Approval may be given for a short-term letting for up to five years:

  (i) if a landowner is planning the amalgamation or regrouping of the holding; or

  (ii) if a prospective purchaser is to work the land before completion of sale; or

  (iii) if a landlord wishes to make temporary arrangements pending a decision on the future use of the land, for example, if a tenant has died and the landlord wishes to make temporary arrangements before re-letting or selling: or

  (iv) where a landlord wishes to give a person who is not an established or experienced tenant a period of trial before concluding a full tenancy; or

  (v) where there is a definite intention that a landlord's son or daughter will take over a vacant holding within five years.

  A further application involving the same parties on the same land can only be approved if there has been a material alteration in the circumstances.

  (c)Specialist cropping
  Approval may be given to a short-term letting to a specialist grower for a single crop requiring "clean land" for example, potatoes, carrots, brassicas, beans, bulbs. Consent may also be given for the growing of a crop, not normally grown on the holding, to be grown as a cleaner crop. A consent will normally be for one year only unless the specialist crop requires a longer period.

  (d) Allotments
  If allotment land is temporarily surplus to requirements approval will normally be given to a short-term letting.

  (e) Operational requirements on Government and other land
  Approval may also be given to a short-term letting where some agricultural use of the land is possible and desirable but a full agricultural tenancy is ruled out by operational or training requirements which affect the use of the land. This applies particularly, but not exclusively, to land owned by the Ministry of Defence.

  The number of consents granted in England under section 5 since 1986 is as follows:

  Year ending 28 February

  Number

  1986

  205

  1987

  221

  1988

  287

  1989

  300

  1990

  397

  1991

  468

  EC Surplus Food Scheme
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he is making for the implementation of the EC surplus food scheme in the United Kingdom in 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  In its report on the operation of the first two years of this scheme the European Commission accepted that, judged as a food surplus disposal exercise, the scheme is inevitably expensive when compared with other mean of surplus disposal. However, it concluded that the facility to operate the scheme should continue to be available to member states.

  The Government endorse the view that the scheme is not a satisfactory method of dealing with surpluses and of assisting those whom it should help. Nevertheless, the
  508
  Government believe that eligible United Kingdom citizens should continue to have the opportunity of benefiting from the scheme in 1992–93.

  For 1992, the Commission has, as in 1991, allocated some 150 mecu to the scheme for the European Community as a whole. The United Kingdom has maintained its share, some 25 mecu, which represents about £17·9 million worth of butter and beef.

  The scheme already makes produce available in the United Kingdom to certain clearly defined categories of people. These are:

  —those in receipt of income support or family credit

  —the homeless and destitute

  —those living in welfare hostels

  We have decided to add to those recipients of the disability working allowance within the categories of those eligible.

  Pensioners or the unemployed are eligible if they fall into one or other of these categories.

  Agriculture departments will be inviting charitable and other non-profit making organisations wishing to take part in the distribution to apply for designation. Organisations will have the usual six weeks to submit their application. To improve the cost-effectiveness of the scheme, the designation of organisations will be for a period of two years. Preference will continue to be given to organisations providing meals for the homeless and those capable of distributing produce widely throughout their local Community.

  We are arranging for further details to be publicised widely and to be sent to the appropriate bodies. Copies of this information have been placed in the Libraries.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Newspaper Merger
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the merger of North London News and Capital Newspapers; when he expects the report for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have received an application for my consent to the transfer to EMAP plc of a controlling interest in Capital Newspapers Ltd. In this case I have discretion either to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or to give consent without such a reference. Representations from third parties have been invited but none has yet been received.

  Home Equity Loan Plans
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives he plans to assist those people threatened with the loss of their homes as a result of home equity loan plans that are no longer viable.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 February 1992]: The Securities and Investments Board has put arrangements in place to ensure that information about problem cases is brought quickly to the attention of all bodies who may be able to help.

  People in difficulties should contact the appropriate Financial Services Act regulator and also the mortgage

  509
  lender to discuss repayment and interest terms, and the investors compensation scheme if the investment firm has been declared in default and claims are being considered.

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) the grants and (b) other advantageous terms available to firms sited within areas with development status and those with assisted area status.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 February 1992]: There are two main grant schemes available to businesses in the assisted areas of Great Britain. Regional selective assistance is available throughout the assisted areas and regional enterprise grants are available in development areas and the intermediate areas of Derbyshire, South Yorkshire, Plymouth and Fife which are covered by the European Community RESIDER and REN.AVAL programmes. Also, consultancy support under the enterprise initiative is given at a higher rate in the assisted areas; and grants or loans may be made by the relevant Secretary of State towards the improvement of basic services.

  In addition, English Estates, and other agencies in Scotland and Wales, have programmes for the provision of industrial and commercial premises in the assisted areas.

  Low-energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 February 1992]: It is my Department's policy to install low-energy lighting wherever it is practicable and the costs are justified.

  Ceramic Industry
  Mrs. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give full details of the support offered to the ceramic and allied industry by the fairs and promotion branch for each of the last 13 years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Details of support for events organised by the British Ceramic Manufacturers Federation a re not readily available prior to 1983–84. A table showing support follows. In 1990–91 the federation was offered support for one event in Frankfurt, but declined the offer. No application for support was made for 1991–92.

  Financial year

  Number of exhibitors

  Financial support£

  1983–84

  47

  41,617

  1984–85

  48

  52,001

  1985–86

  22

  28,165

  Visits by overseas residents

  Number of visits ('000)

  Expenditure (£ million)1

  Year

  London

  England

  United Kingdom

  London

  England

  United Kingdom

  1980

  7,440

  11,150

  12,421

  1,695

  2,665

  2,930

  1981

  6,840

  10,410

  11,452

  1,702

  2,696

  2,939

  1982

  7,140

  10,680

  11,636

  1,825

  2,850

  3,133

  1983

  7,560

  11,380

  12,464

  2,252

  3,607

  3,970

  1984

  8,400

  12,550

  13,644

  2,658

  4,166

  4,576

  1985

  9,080

  13,320

  14,449

  3,228

  4,937

  5,398

  510

  Financial year

  Number of exhibitors

  Financial support £

  1986–87

  19

  9,286

  1987–88

  19

  19,500

  1988–89

  21

  16,358

  1989–90

  24

  26,267

  1990–91

  0

  0

  1991–92

  0

  0

  In addition to receiving assistance at events organised by the federation, companies in the industry receive assistance at other DTI-supported events. However, records are not kept in a format to readily identify the number of such companies and the amount of support.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the registered job vacancies at employment centres in the Tooting constituency on 18 February.

  Mr. Jackson
  On 3 January 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of unfilled vacancies at the jobcentres covering the Tooting parliamentary constituency was 58.

  Family Statistics
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish figures showing the number of(a) dependent children, (b) children under age five years, (c) working mothers, (d) two-earner couples, (e) working mothers with at least one child under age five years and, (f) two-earner couples with at least one child under age five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Estimates from the labour force survey carried out in the spring of 1990 indicate that in Great Britain there were;

  (a) 11,148,000 dependent children (under age 16 years),

  (b) 3,698,000 children under age five years,

  (c) 3,685.000 working mothers (aged 16–59),

  (d) 6,957000 two-earner couples (women in employment aged 16–59 with a husband or cohabiting partner in employment),

  (e) 1,250,000 working mothers (aged 16–59) with at least one child under age five years.

  Overseas Visitors (Expenditure)
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish(a) the total number of and (b) estimated expenditure by overseas visitors to (i) London, (ii) England and (iii) the United Kingdom in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Forth
  The required figures are as follows:
  511

  Number of visits ('000)

  Expenditure (£ million)1

  Year

  London

  England

  United Kingdom

  London

  England

  United Kingdom

  1986

  8,190

  12,600

  13,897

  3,203

  4,978

  5,506

  1987

  9,330

  14,250

  15,566

  3,574

  5,668

  6,212

  1988

  9,080

  14,200

  15,799

  3,461

  5,585

  6,137

  1989

  9,870

  15,480

  17,338

  4,015

  6,308

  6,889

  1990

  10,310

  16,240

  18,021

  4,269

  6,963

  7,712

  1 Expenditure figures exclude visitors to the Channel Islands and certain visitors in transit.

  Sign Language
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what sign language facilities are available to allow deaf persons to take up employment in the Employment Service;

  (2) how many staff employed in jobcentres have sign language skills.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what support is available to deaf people on Government training schemes by way of sign language practitioners.

  Mr. Jackson
  Training and enterprise councils' resources include funding to support communication services for eligible deaf people on government funded training programmes. These services are also provided at two specialist residential training colleges for the deaf, which are also funded by the Employment Department.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the latest figures for people who are long-term unemployed in(a) Leyton constituency, (b) Waltham Forest, (c) London and (d) nationally.

  Current establishment

  Establishment1 April 1992

  Current strength (as at 30 November 1991)

  Dyfed-Powys

  944

  969

  948

  Gwent

  1,009

  1,010

  1,001

  North Wales

  1,352

  1,369

  1,342

  South Wales

  3,168

  3,168

  3,145

  Television Reception
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy for reception of both Channel 4 television and S4C to be available throughout Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not possible at present to broadcast both Channel 4 television and Sianel Pedwar Cymru throughout Wales, because there are insufficient available frequencies.
  512
  Mr. Jackson
  The latest available information, relating to January 1992, is contained in the following table and can also be obtained from the NOMIS database system in the Library.

  Long-term unemployment in January 19921

  Area

  Number of long-term unemployed

  Leyton parliamentary constituency

  1,709

  Waltham Forest local authority district

  3,796

  Greater London

  108,361

  United Kingdom

  746,977

  1 Unemployment figures by duration are produced quarterly and are on the unadjusted basis. The definition of long-term unemployed is those people unemployed for one year or more.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Welsh Police Forces
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on manning levels of rural police forces in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest figures for police establishments and strength for the four Welsh police forces are as follows:

  Traffic Offences (Camera Detection)
  Sir Philip Goodhart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to bring forward regulations for type approved camera equipment to help with deterring and detecting speeding and traffic light offenders.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No camera equipment has yet completed the necessary laboratory tests. I cannot anticipate the outcome of these tests.

  Sir Philip Goodhart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money he is making available to the police in the coming financial year for(a)

  513
  the purchase of red light and speed camera equipment and (b) the purchase of computer equipment and software to make use of such camera equipment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We do not make allocations of grant for specific items of equipment. In 1992–93 the available provision of capital grant and credit approvals will support expenditure by provincial forces of £111·3 million on vehicles, equipment and minor building works. It is for police authorities to determine how this money should be used.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will extend the existing section 11 grants for 1991–92 for education purposes at the same rate to the end of the academic year 1991–92;

  (2) what was the total sum (a) bid for and (b) allowed for grants to Bradford council for 1992–93 under section 11;

  (3) what representations he has received from Bradford council on the future of section 11 grants;

  (4) what total sums at 1991 prices were paid to Bradford council in each of the last five years under the provisions of section 11 on (a) education items and (b) all other services.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Under new arrangements which were announced in October 1990 and which are designed to ensure that payments of grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 are targeted so as to achieve maximum benefit for members of ethnic minorities, local authorities were required to bid afresh by 30 April 1991 for all future funding from 1 April 1992. Local authorities were notified in December of the outcome of applications and it is not possible to extend previous funding in the way in which the hon. Member suggests.

  Bradford council submitted applications for projects commencing on 1 April amounting in a full year to grant of £7·3 million at 1990–91 prices. Approximately £6 million, at 1992–93 prices, is expected to be paid in grant in 1992–93.

  As the hon. Member is aware, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science and I will shortly be meeting representatives of the local authority, together with the hon. Member and his hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).

  In the last five years for which figures are available, the amount of grant paid to Bradford council, expressed at 1990–91 prices, was approximately as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1986–87

  6·1

  1987–88

  5·9

  1988–89

  6·2

  1989–90

  6·9

  1990–91

  6·5

  It is not possible to give a precise breakdown between grant to support education and other services. In general, it is estimated that education provision accounted for approximately 80 per cent. of the total grant.

  Magistrates Courts
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the White Paper on the future organisation of the magistrates courts as announced in his answer to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on 19 December,Official Report, columns 250–51.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is to take responsibility for the magistrates courts service from 1 April, and I have today published the White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice", and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state his reasons for rejecting the application of the South Wales police authority for an increase of 44 posts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend takes decisions on applications for increases in police establishments from police authorities in the light of the professional advice of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary. This advice takes account of, among other things, the relative needs of different forces as indicated by the manpower formula, the efficiency with which existing manpower is used, and the extent of any vacancies. The formula indicates that south Wales is relatively well provided at present, compared with other forces.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of additional uniformed officers excluding special constables that have been authorised to be added to the strength of the West Yorkshire police each year from 1975 to 1991 shown(a) in total and (b) by police station.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Increases in the police establishment for West Yorkshire police for the years in question are as follows. Allocations to individual police stations is a matter for the chief constable, and this information is not held centrally.

  Year

  Number of police posts approved

  1975

  1

  1981

  50

  1987

  50

  1988

  23

  1989

  32

  1990

  20

  1991

  16

  Hampshire Constabulary
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the establishment of the Hampshire constabulary both police and civilians and (b) the number of police per head of population in Hampshire in the financial year 1990–91; and what is the (i) estimated establishment of the Hampshire constabulary, both police and civilians and (ii) the estimated number of police per head of population in Hampshire in the financial year 1991–92.
  515
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information, relating to the police establishment authorised by the Home Secretary and the civilian strength, is as follows:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Police establishment

  3,175

  3,202

  Civilian strength

  1994

  21,039

  Population per officer

  528

  3524

  1 As at 31 March 1991.

  2 As at 31 December 1991.

  3 On the basis of latest population figures at mid-1990, provided by the OPCS.

  Convicted Criminals (Confessions)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 5 February 1992,Official Report, column 163, and 14 February 1992, Official Report, column 664–65, if he will call for a report from the chief constables of Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands as to how many detectives were employed during 1990–91 obtaining voluntary admissions from convicted criminals.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The figures to which the hon. Member refers can be found in various reports published by the Treasury and the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service. These record that on 1 April 1991 the Home Office employed 41,994 non-industrial staff. Of those who responded to ethnic origin surveys carried out by the Department, 1,085 classified themselves as being of ethnic minority origin, representing 5·3 per cent. of the total number who responded. The Home Office employs 183 registered disabled persons, representing 0·4 per cent. of the total number of non-industrial staff.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) Administrative Trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The April 1991 figures for men and women in grades 1 to 4 and SEO to AA were included in Her Majesty's Treasury's "Civil Service Statistics". This did not include an analysis of grades 5 to 7 and AT/HEODs. The nearest equivalent figures for these grades are at December 1990, as follows:

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Grade 5

  70

  16

  86

  Grade 6

  80

  5

  85

  Grade 7

  394

  91

  485

  AT/HEOD

  6

  12

  18

  Northallerton Prison
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the refurbishment and improvement works in the vulnerable prisoner unit, Her Majesty's prison, Northallerton to be completed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Most of the work is expected to be completed by August 1992, and the remainder by March 1993.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will tabulate the salary increases of teachers from 1979; and if he will relate these to the annual rate of inflation for the same period.

  Mr. Fallon
  Increases in teachers' average salaries since 1979 are as follows. These take account of incremental drift and the full-year effect of increases in the number and value of incentive allowances. The Government propose to implement the recommendations of the school teachers review body for teachers' pay in 1992–93. This would increase the pay bill by 7·8 per cent. in that year.

  Teachers' average salaries1 (cash)£

  Percentage increase since 1979(real terms) 2

  3April

  1979

  5,380

  —

  1980

  7,380

  12·7

  1981

  8,030

  9·4

  1982

  8,620

  7·3

  1983

  9,120

  9·2

  1984

  9,650

  9·9

  1985

  10,390

  10·6

  1986

  11,220

  15·9

  1987

  13,100

  29·9

  1988

  13,670

  30·4

  1989

  14,730

  30·1

  1990

  16,030

  29·3

  1991

  17,640

  33·8

  41991

  18,320

  36·2

  1 Average salaries for all teachers (including heads and deputies) in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England and Wales.

  2 Real terms percentage changes calculated on the basis of movements in the all items retail prices index.

  3 Average salary at highest value in calendar year, except for 1991 where the effect of staging the settlement is shown separately for April and December.

  4 December 1991, when the second stage of the 1991–92 pay settlement was implemented.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers, and at what grades, he expects to earn more than £20,280 during the next financial year following the recent pay review body report.

  Mr. Fallon
  We estimate that approximately 182,000 teachers, some 47 per cent., will earn more than £20,280 per annum when the pay rises recommended by the school teachers review body take effect. Of these, some 28,000 will be head teachers, 31,000 deputy head teachers, 119,000 classroom teachers paid on the standard scale holding an incentive allowance, and the remaining 4,000 teachers paid
  517
  on the standard scale with the addition of both the inner London allowance and the inner London discretionary supplement.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the training given to teachers to deal with dyslexia.

  Mr. Fallon
  All courses of initial teacher training are now required to equip prospective teachers to teach the full range of pupils whom they are likely to encounter in an ordinary school and to introduce them to ways of identifying children with special education needs, including dyslexia. The Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education has also been asked to consider dyslexia specifically in its inquiry into the preparation of student teachers to teach reading. Its report will be published shortly. In-service training is also available for teachers of pupils with dyslexia. Training of teachers of pupils with special education needs in ordinary schools is one of the priorities supported by the Department through the grants for education support and training programme. The Department has also sponsored the production of an audio-visual pack aimed to assist teachers in ordinary schools to identify children with special education needs, one module of which is specifically concerned with dyslexia.

  Sign Language
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many courses are run for sign language learners; and what plans he has to extend this number;

  (2) whether he has any plans to increase the level of sign language support in mainstream schools;

  (3) how many registered sign language practitioners there are in (a) Yorkshire and Humberside and (b) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Education Act 1981 places the responsibility for making appropriate educational provision for children with special education needs on each local education authority. It is not for the Government to prescribe which form of communication should be employed in schools where there are pupils with hearing impairments, nor the level of support they require. Such decisions are best made in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Information is not available centrally about the number of courses for sign language learners or the number of registered sign language practitioners.

  Statements of Attainment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 42, how he proposes to ensure comparability between English courses: what regulation he proposes to make to ensure that the omission of statements of attainment from examination does not change the range, competence or quality of the examination offered; and what regulatory body will be responsible for supervising such regulations.

  Mr. Eggar
  The School Examinations and Assessment Council will shortly be issuing criteria in English and the 518
  other core subjects with which the examining bodies will need to comply in drawing up syllabuses for the assessment of pupils starting key stage 4 courses from September 1992 for first examination in summer 1994. I am satisfied that these will ensure the broad comparability between syllabuses which will be required by the national curriculum assessment arrangements, to be specified in orders due to be made later this year, while giving scope for a certain amount of variation.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the proportion of school leavers going into higher education in(a) each London borough, (b) Greater London, (c) outer London, (d) inner London and (e) England for each year from 1980–81 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Howarth
  The proportions of school leavers from maintained schools whose intended destinations for the three-year period ending 1989–90 was a university or polytechnic course, for the areas requested, were as shown in the table. Information for earlier years is not readily available and to provide it would involve disproportionate cost. Information for 1990–91 is not yet available.

  School Leavers—England

  Aggregate of academic years 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90

  Proportion of school leavers from maintained schools intending to enter higher education (Univeristy or Polytechnic)

  per cent.

  Barking

  3·0

  Barnet

  17·9

  Bexley

  8·1

  Brent

  11·2

  Bromley

  12·2

  Croydon

  8·9

  Ealing

  7·0

  Enfield

  13·3

  Haringey

  6·7

  Harrow

  4·0

  Havering

  5·5

  Hillingdon

  7·9

  Hounslow

  10·0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  11·4

  Merton

  7·3

  Newham

  3·5

  Redbridge

  10·4

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  0·9

  Sutton

  12·0

  Waltham Forest

  4·5

  Total Outer London

  8·6

  Inner London

  5·6

  All London

  7·7

  England

  9·2

  National Union of Students
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money has been given in grants to the National Union of Students in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The National Union of Students is not supported by central Government grant.

  Examination Statistics
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will publish the percentage of young people, as a proportion of school leavers, achieving (i) one or more grade G or better, (ii) five or more grade G or better and (iii) five or more grade C or better at GCSE/O-level/CSE in(a) each London borough/ILEA, (b) Greater London, (c) outer London, (d) inner London and (e) England for each year from 1980–81 to 1991–92;

  (2) if he will publish the percentage of young people, as a proportion of the 17-year-old age group, achieving (i)

  School leavers—England

  Aggregate of academic years 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90

  Proportion of school leavers from maintained schools attaining the levels shown (not mutually exclusive)

  GCSE

  A-level/ AS

  1+A-G

  5+A-G

  5+A-C

  1+A/AS

  3+A/AS

  Barking

  79·0

  58·5

  13·6

  7·7

  3·5

  Barnet

  89·4

  75·9

  39·0

  33·6

  18·1

  Bexley

  90·0

  77·1

  30·2

  17·1

  10·3

  Brent

  86·0

  62·2

  23·3

  18·8

  8·6

  Bromley

  87·6

  70·5

  31·7

  22·3

  13·4

  Croydon

  85·8

  67·5

  22·9

  18·1

  9·5

  Ealing

  83·2

  63·4

  21·5

  17·8

  8·1

  Enfield

  91·6

  76·3

  31·5

  23·9

  12·3

  Haringey

  83·2

  58·6

  19·9

  13·4

  3·9

  Harrow

  96·5

  87·8

  44·1

  8·1

  6·3

  Havering

  92·1

  76·9

  28·6

  14·7

  7·2

  Hillingdon

  91·6

  76·3

  27·3

  17·5

  7·7

  Hounslow

  85·6

  67·9

  25·2

  17·2

  8·0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  86·7

  74·2

  34·2

  23·6

  12·3

  Merton

  86·8

  69·0

  28·7

  16·7

  8·3

  Newham

  76·4

  57·6

  14·3

  7·5

  2·4

  Redbridge

  86·4

  67·7

  25·3

  19·6

  10·6

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  94·9

  87·1

  38·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Sutton

  94·6

  77·8

  37·0

  25·5

  13·3

  Waltham Forest

  87·0

  66·2

  17·7

  9·6

  5·5

  Total Outer London

  87·7

  70·9

  27·5

  17·2

  8·8

  Inner London

  76·7

  53·7

  17·4

  11·8

  4·4

  All London

  84·5

  66·0

  24·6

  15·6

  7·6

  England

  89·9

  73·6

  28·6

  17·1

  9·6

  Teachers, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will show the full-time equivalent number of teachers employed in(a) Leeds city council infant and primary schools, (b) Leeds city council middle schools and (c) Leeds city council secondary schools in (i) each year since 1974 and (ii) broken down into constituency areas.

  Mr. Fallon
  The full-time equivalent numbers of qualified teachers in maintained primary, middle and secondary schools in Leeds local education authority in January of each year are shown in the table. Information on constituency areas is not held centrally.

  Full-time equivalent numbers of qualified teachers in maintained primary, middle and secondary schools in Leeds Local Education Authority—January 1974–1991.

  (thousands)

  Primary1

  Middle

  Secondary

  1974

  2·5

  1·2

  2·5

  1975

  2·5

  1·2

  2·6

  1976

  2·5

  1·2

  2·7

  1977

  2·5

  1·2

  2·8

  1978

  2·5

  1·2

  2·8

  520
  one or more passes and (ii) three or more passes at A-level in (a) each London borough/ILEA, (b) Greater London, (c) outer London, (d) inner London and (e) England for each year from 1980–81 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows the proportions of school leavers from maintained schools with the specified achievements in GCSE/O-level/CSE or A-level, according to the areas requested, for the three-year period ending 1989–90. Information for earlier years is not readily available and to provide it would involve disproportionate cost. Information for 1990–91 and 1991–92 is not yet available.

  Primary1

  Middle

  Secondary

  1979

  2·4

  1·3

  2·9

  1980

  2·6

  1·4

  2·9

  1981

  2·3

  1·4

  2·9

  1982

  2·1

  1·3

  2·8

  1983

  2·0

  1·3

  2·9

  1984

  2·0

  1·2

  2·9

  1985

  2·0

  1·2

  2·8

  1986

  2·2

  1·1

  2·8

  1987

  2·3

  1·1

  2·8

  1988

  2·4

  1·1

  2·7

  1989

  2·5

  1·1

  2·6

  1990

  2·6

  1·0

  2·5

  1991

  2·5

  0·9

  2·4

  1 Includes infant schools.

  Student Statistics
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the proportion of students aged(a) 16, (b) 17 and (c) 16 and 17 years participating in full-time or part-time education in (i) each London borough, (ii) Greater London, (iii) outer London, (iv) inner London and (v) England for each year since 1980–81.
  521
  Mr. Eggar
  Data for students aged 16 and 17 separately for the years 1979–80 to 1989–90 for ILEA, individual outer London boroughs, the total of outer London boroughs and England are contained in DES statistics bulletins 9/86 and 14/91. Data for Greater London from 1981–82 to 1989–90 are available in bulletins 6/87 and 14/91. Copies of these bulletins are available in the Library. Data for individual inner London boroughs are not available because ILEA was the responsible education authority until 1 April 1990. The participation rates shown exclude independent schools.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children are not currently eligible for free school meals but would have been before the Social Security Act 1986; and what would be the gross and net costs of restoring their right to free school meals.

  Mr. Fallon
  A variety of local education authority discretionary schemes existed prior to the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986. Consequently, it is not possible to estimate the number of children who would now be eligible for free school meals on that basis.

  Adult Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many adult students have been or are at present on access courses leading to higher education during the years 1989–90, 1990–91, and 1991–92 in England.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 February 1992]: There has been a rapid growth in the number of access courses leading to higher education in recent years. Recorded student numbers show that there were 7,000 students aged 19 or over on such courses in November 1989 and 10,000 in November 1990. Data for 1991 are not yet available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give an estimate for 1991 of the ratio of Britain's official development assistance to gross national product.

  Mrs. Chalker
  For 1991 we expect to at least maintain the average aid-GNP ratio of the previous four years of 0.30 per cent. —an indication that the overseas aid budget has in recent years been growing broadly in line with the economy.

  EC Aid Programmes
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the increase since 1979 in Britain's contribution to the European Community's aid programmes.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1979, our contribution was £118 million, while in 1990, which is the latest year for which we have final figures, it was £333 million. That is an increase of over 180 per cent. in cash terms, or over 25 per cent. In 522
  real terms. The European Community is an increasingly important channel for our aid. We are devoting considerable time and attention to ensuring that the quality of this aid increases in line with the quantities involved.

  International Organisations
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, columns 649–52, what was the percentage change (a) between 1979 and 1990, and (b) between 1989 and 1990 in the United Kingdom's contribution in 1990 prices to (i) the International Labour Organisation, (ii) the Food and Agriculture Organisation, (iii) the International Food and Agriculture Development, (iv) the United Nations Development Programme, (v) the World Food Programme, (vi) UNICEF, (vii) the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, (viii) the United Nations Food for Population Articles and (ix) the United Nations Environmental Programme.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Percentage change

  Organisations

  1979–1990

  1989–1990

  International Labour Organisation

  19·7

  -3·3

  Food and Agriculture Organisation

  73·7

  3·3

  International Fund for Agricultural Development

  —

  -24·5

  United Nations Development Programme

  -57·5

  -3·6

  World Food Programme

  1—

  -76·2

  United Nations Children's Fund

  -43·7

  -29·7

  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

  -2·9

  -6·7

  United Nations Fund for Population Activities

  2-65·3

  2-49·6

  United Nations Environmental Programme

  124·3

  -7·6

  1 Contributions to the World Food Programme include subscription payments, commodity purchase and, from 1987, food aid· Prior to 1987 the food aid channelled through WFP could not be distinguished from other food aid, and therefore is not included in this table·

  2 Contributions to UNFPA are paid in two instalments per financial year, but only one was paid in the calendar year 1990· The balance of £3 million was paid in February 1991·

PRIME MINISTER

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to extend to England, Scotland and Wales legislation which would require cricket clubs, bowling clubs, yacht clubs, football clubs, etc., to furnish to the police copies of the annual general meeting of the club, or of the meetings of the committee of management or governing body of the club, on the lines of current legislation applying in Northern Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of his further meeting with representatives of the Manchester Olympic bid committee.
  523
  The Prime Minister
  I am delighted to announce that the Government are backing Manchester's Olympic bid. We will be committing £55 million towards the bid and provision of sports facilities in advance of the nomination. This will contribute to the construction of the Olympic arena and a national cycling arena and will allow us to acquire and prepare the Olympic stadium site.

  We aim to use the games to spearhead the regeneration of east Manchester. We will now work urgently with Manchester city council to identify how the full range of Government programmes can be brought to bear for the regeneration of the area and the best arrangements for securing delivery of this and the Olympic facilities themselves.

  Success cannot be guaranteed: the competition will be intense. But we intend to win.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the results of the atmospheric tests following the British nuclear teast codenamed Rousanne at the Nevada test site in 1981 as they relate to the amount of radioactive material vented to the atmosphere.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There was no venting from the 1981 British test, codenamed Rousanne.

  RAF Valley
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the air sea rescue service based at RAF Valley, following his statement made on 19 February about defence equipment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Final decisions on the structure of the RAF search and rescue force have yet to be taken. I cannot, therefore, comment on the possible implications for individual search and rescue flights.

  Service Men (Pay)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage change in real terms in the pay upon appointment of(a) a field marshal, (b) major generals, (c) colonels, (d) captains, (e) second lieutenants, (f) sergeants, (g) corporals and (h) privates between 1970–71 and 1979–80, and 1979–80 to the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The percentage changes in real terms in pay upon appointment are set out in the table.

  11970–71 to 11979–80 Per cent

  11979–80 to 11991–92 Per cent

  Field Marshal

  -24·3

  +83·3

  Major General

  -30·5

  +57·1

  Colonel

  -12·1

  +38·6

  Captain

  -4·8

  +28·9

  2nd Lieutenant

  -13·6

  +17·9

  Sergeant

  +9·0

  +17·5

  Corporal

  +10·7

  +14·9

  Private

  +11·0

  +1·0

  1Financial year.

WALES

  Monmouth Borough Council
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding his reduction of the standard spending assessment of Monmouth borough council.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The chief executive of Monmouth borough council wrote to me on 18 February. I will be responding shortly.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many hearing aids were provided free by each health authority in Wales in 1989, 1990 and 1991;

  (2) if he will list those health authorities in Wales which charge patients for the supply of replacement hearing aids when the original has been lost or mislaid.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally.

  However, where hearing aids are supplied to patients on loan, the health authority has discretion to charge for the cost of replacement for lost equipment.

  Listed Building, Chepstow
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the recent destruction of rich archaeological deposits under a listed building in Bridge street, Chepstow.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Works on buildings requiring listed building consent are primarily a matter for local planning authorities, in this case Monmouth borough council.

  Nevill Hall Hospital
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding proposals to introduce charges for car parking at Nevill Hall hospital, Abergavenny.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I have received one representation concerning these proposals.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered homeless households have been allocated(a) chalet accommodation and (b) prefabricated housing by each local authority in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is not available centrally.

  Council House Waiting Lists
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures for each local authority in Wales showing the greatest length of time spent by an individual on a current council house waiting list.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is not available centrally.

  Home Ownership Schemes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales of the transferable discount housing schemes operational in Wales, how many provide properties that
  525
  have been purchased (a) within the schemes' boundaries and (b) outside the schemes' boundaries; and if he will publish a list of the number of properties within each category.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The available data relate to the pilot scheme in Cardiff which provided seven grants to tenants to purchase properties, all in the authority's area.

  Empty Housing
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many furnished properties owned by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations in Wales have remained empty for more than six months.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is not available centrally.

  A487
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects work will start on the improvement of the A487 trunk road between Furnace Bridge and Eglwys Fach in Cardiganshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The scheme is planned to start between April 1994 and March 1997.

  Ceredigion Ports
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to improve the ports in Ceredigion; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. Improvements to ports are matters for the port operators to take forward as they see fit.

  Bilingual Schools
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children attend bilingual schools in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The latest statistics available—1990 —show that 104,616 children attend schools where some or all the teaching is through the medium of Welsh. This represents an increase of more than 1,000 pupils on the previous year.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will introduce a scheme of relief against the uniform business rate in Wales for those whose businesses have had to close because of financial failure; and if he will make a statement;
  526
  (2) if he will make transitional relief against the uniform business rate available to new occupiers of existing shop and business premises in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no plans to do so.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce planning guidelines to ensure that the effect upon local television and radio reception is taken into account by local planning authorities when considering applications for the construction of wind farms in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  A draft planning policy guidance note on renewable energy, including an annex on wind energy, was recently issued for public consultation. Paragraphs 52 to 56 of the annex give guidance on television and radio reception issues advising that"provided careful attention is paid to siting, wind turbines should not cause any significant problems of electromagnetic interference".

  The consultation period expired on 12 February and the responses received are being assessed.

  Heartbeat Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the evaluation study of the first five years of Heartbeat Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]The Heartbeat Wales programme is a multi-faceted project. Its evaluation is a complex process and is being undertaken in separate stages. The Health Promotion Authority for Wales—HPAW—published a technical report on "Recent Trends in Lifestyles in Wales 1985–1990" in February 1992 and compares 1985, 1988 and 1990 date on diet, smoking, alcohol, exercise weight and obesity by age and sex. The authority expects to publish two further technical reports in March 1992 examining changes in lifestyle by social class and sex, and by health authority district and sex.

  By March 1993, the HPAW plans to publish a further four technical reports summarising community survey data and one technical report on clinical survey data. The final evaluation report is expected to be available by early summer 1993.

  I am placing a copy of the February report in the Library of the House, and have arranged for copies of future reports to be placed similarly.

SCOTLAND

  Inverclyde Enterprise Zone
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received concerning the Inverclyde enterprise zone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Recent representations have related to the possible location within Inverclyde enterprise zone of the proposed expansion of the Registers of Scotland. It has now been decided to locate this operation at Cowglen, Glasgow.

  I met the hon. Member and representatives of Inverclyde development corporation on 23 December to discuss prospects for the Inverclyde enterprise zone.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to meet representatives of the Bus and Coach Council for Scotland to discuss its report, " Buses mean Business", on bus lanes in cities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I hope to meet the Bus and Coach Council for Scotland on 9 March.

  Defence
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the action which he proposes to take in relation to the report by Scottish Enterprise on defence in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The report now received by Scottish Enterprise is an important contribution to the development of the defence industries initiative. Information from that study will be used by Scottish Enterprise to take forward work already in hand with local enterprise companies and defence companies to identify practical steps to help companies and communities adapt to the changing demand for defence-related goods and services.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet fishing industry representatives in Scotland to discuss the future structure of the industry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for fisheries in Scotland will meet representatives of the fishing industry before the Fisheries Council meeting scheduled for 3 April.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hectares of Forestry Commission land have been sold off since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Forestry Commission had sold 155,000 hectares of land in the decade ended 1991.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of contract cancellation to the public purse arising from the 528
  cancellation of the commercial agreement entered into between his Department and the construction consortium for the purposes of building a toll-funded bridge to the Isle of Skye; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No cancellation costs arise, because the contract has not been cancelled.

  Hospital Fund Raising
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the amount of money being raised by charities for Scottish hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Just under one half of I per cent. of health service funding is contributed from charitable sources. The NHS is very appreciative of the support which is provided in this way.

  Scottish Power
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had recently with the chairman of Scottish Power on the future of electricity generation and distribution.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of Scottish Power from time to time when a range of issues is discussed.

  Drug Offences
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland, in each of the last five years, have been convicted, and what was their average sentence, for dealing, providing, pushing, selling, supplying or trafficking in drugs; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on convictions for drugs offences is published annually in "Statistics of the misuse of drugs: seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, Scotland tables", copies of which are in the Library.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of people employed in the financial services sector in(a) Scotland and (b) Lothian region.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The latest figures available, showing the number of people employed in the financial services sector, come from the 1989 Employment Department census of employment. The figures are(a) 83,856 for Scotland and (b) 27,566 for Lothian region.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland since May 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Between April 1979 and September 1991 nearly 234,000 public sector houses in Scotland were sold to sitting tenants. Included in that figure are nearly 173,000 sales by local authorities.

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet health service unions in Scotland to discuss nurse training.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet health service unions in Scotland to discuss nurse training. Nurse training will, of course, change radically when we introduce Project 2000 courses later this year. My right hon. Friend also announced in February last year our plans for the future funding and organisation of nurse education and training following the enactment of the current legislative changes.

  Renfrewshire Enterprise Company
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Renfrewshire enterprise company regarding training and industrial development.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I had a very useful and constructive meeting with the chairman of Renfrewshire Enterprise and his colleagues on 14 October last year at which a wide range of topics relating to training and industrial development were discussed. My right hon. Friend and I also have frequent discussions with the chairman and members of Scottish Enterprise about developments in the Scottish economy generally.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to solve unemployment in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The key to increased employment is a prosperous and productive economy. The Government are firmly committed to removing the barriers to economic growth and to the stimulation of economic development, through various measures including the activities of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and their networks of local enterprise companies.

  In relation to unemployed individuals, this Government have introduced the most comprehensive range of measures there has ever been in this country to help people back to work. The Employment Service provides a wide range of services which result in two thirds of people who become unemployed leave unemployment within six months. The Employment Service also manages the employment action programme, delivered through local enterprise companies as a complement to the range of training schemes which they offer and which make a major contribution to helping young people and the long-term unemployed to improve their prospects of entering employment.

  The effectiveness of these measures in Scotland can be seen from the fact that the number of those unemployed for over a year rose in Scotland by only 8·4 per cent. between January 1991 and January 1992, less than a fifth of the average for Great Britain as a whole.

  Dumfries-Stranraer Rail Link
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what application he has received for support for the reinstatement of direct rail links between Dumfries and Stranraer; and if he will make a statement.
  530
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received representations seeking support, in principle, for the restoration of the railway line between Dumfries and Stranraer. Investment in railways is, however, a matter for British Rail. I understand that British Rail do not consider that this particular project could be economically or financially justified in the foreseeable future.

  The Union
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in support of the maintenance of the Union between Scotland and England.

  Mr. Lang
  In the past six months I have received 47 letters supporting the maintenance of the Union between Scotland and England. That is more than I have received in favour of independence.

  NHS Building
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospitals and other health board facilities have been built in Scotland since 1979; and at what cost.

  Mr. Lang
  Eighty-seven major hospital building projects have been completed since 1979 at a cost of £482 million. In addition to hospital new build and redevelopment, completed projects have included hospital service facilities, residences and energy saving schemes.

  In the same period a large number of minor hospital projects and developments were completed. There has also been a major investment in information technology and a special programme to tackle backlog maintenance worth over £200; and significant new investment in health centres and colleges of nursing.

  Capital investment in the NHS in Scotland has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms from 1979 to the year end 1991–92 and a total of nearly £230 million has been allocated to health boards in Scotland for capital expenditure for 1992–93.

  A further 41 major projects with a value of £300 million are currently in the pipeline, representing the largest building programme in the history of the NHS in Scotland.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the restructuring of the fishing industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The future structure of the fishing industry in Scotland is linked to the need for the United Kingdom to develop a new multi-annual guidance programme for the fishing fleet for the period 1993–96. This is currently under discussion with the European Commission.

  Constitutional Reform
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in favour of a devolved Scottish assembly.

  Mr. Lang
  In the past six months I have received 55 representations supporting a devolved Scottish assembly, and 35 against a devolved Scottish assembly.
  531
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the future governance of Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, regularly, but it has not sought a meeting specifically to discuss the future governance of Scotland.

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost to his Department of(a) arranging for officials to be in attendance at the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh on 24 February and (b) arranging for officials to be in attendance for Scottish Question Time in Westminster today, 26 February.

  Mr. Lang
  As Scottish Office officials in attendance at Scottish Grand Committee meetings in Edinburgh are deployed from other duties, my Department does not bear any significant extra costs in respect of their attendance. Officials attending Scottish Question Time do so in pursuit of their duties and, therefore, as a rule, extra costs are not involved.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much manufacturing output in Scotland has risen since 1979.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Manufacturing output in Scotland has risen by 11·8 per cent. in the 11 years between 1979 and 1990.

  Health Board Finances
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen of health boards to discuss financial allocations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My last meeting with health board chairmen was on 31 January 1992.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to meet the chairmen of the Scottish National Health Service trusts to discuss operation of the trusts.

  Mr. Lang
  In my statement on 3 December approving the trust applications I indicated that I would be maintaining close contact with the trusts as they moved towards operational status on 1 April. I have already met the trust chairmen on several occasions and further meetings are planned.

  Alternative Medicine
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the development of homoeopathic and alternative medicine within the Scottish health service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The decision on whether to practise medicine using homoeopathic or other alternative treatments is for individual doctors. Doctors in contract 532
  with the National Health Service can provide these treatments for their patients in the same way as they provide conventional medicines.

  Evening Primrose Oil
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether primrose oil for the treatment of arthritis is included in the list of items available on prescription under the national health service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Medicinal products which the Licensing Authority has on advice judged to be safe and efficacious are generally available on the NHS. One evening primrose oil product is licensed for the treatment of atopic eczema and is prescribable on the NHS for that purpose. No evening primrose oil product is licensed for the treatment of arthritis.

  The Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances advises the Health Departments as to the circumstances in which unlicensed products may be regarded as drugs and has considered evening primrose oil products from time to time but has not been satisfied that they have a therapeutic use in the treatment of arthritis.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the contract with the Post Office to distribute each health board's local version of the patients charter.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The final cost of the contract with the Post Office will not be known until the distribution exercise is complete.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost for each health board of producing and distributing their local version of the patients charter.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Detailed information is not available centrally.

  A7 (Accidents)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all recorded road accidents which occurred on the A7 between Hawick and Langholm, indicating the location and date of each accident for the last two years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]The information requested on injury accidents on the A7 between Hawick and Langholm for the two year period October 1989 to September 1991 is as follows:

  Location: OS Grid Reference

  East

  North

  Date

  Severity

  34599

  61094

  6 October 1989

  Serious

  33870

  59730

  17 November 1989

  Slight

  34060

  60171

  27 December 1989

  Slight

  34207

  60690

  12 February 1990

  Fatal

  33680

  58940

  16 March 1990

  Slight

  34776

  61309

  21 March 1990

  Serious

  34771

  61306

  16 May 1990

  Slight

  34051

  60118

  24 June 1990

  Serious

  34485

  60975

  6 August 1990

  Slight

  533

  East

  North

  Date

  Severity

  34054

  60329

  13 August 1990

  Slight

  34070

  60282

  16 August 1990

  Slight

  33710

  59090

  11 September 1990

  Serious

  34036

  60458

  6 October 1990

  Slight

  34023

  60416

  13 November 1990

  Slight

  34023

  60416

  5 December 1990

  Serious

  35214

  61335

  14 December 1990

  Slight

  34040

  60374

  11 January 1991

  Slight

  34729

  61242

  18 January 1991

  Slight

  33710

  59110

  6 March 1991

  Slight

  34060

  60547

  22 March 1991

  Slight

  34528

  61050

  4 April 1991

  Slight

  34845

  61382

  20 April 1991

  Serious

  33690

  58580

  22 July 1991

  Slight

  34587

  61091

  4 August 1991

  Serious

  34610

  61119

  10 August 1991

  Slight

  34062

  60547

  2 September 1991

  Slight

  34643

  61160

  14 September 1991

  Slight

  34528

  61051

  26 September 1991

  Slight

  34733

  61250

  27 September 1991

  Slight

  Figures for 1991 are provisional.

  Traffic Systems, Hawick
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement outlining the current timetable for consideration of the internal traffic management systems in Hawick; and when he now expects to be in a position to authorise the funds and capital consents required to enable work to start to alleviate the current congestion.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1991] I expect a report on proposals to provide improved traffic management in Hawick to be submitted to the Secretary of State by Borders regional council in the course of the next two to three months. Until this report is available it is not possible to estimate the level of funding which would be required.

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Berwickshire

  457

  366

  245

  238

  183

  171

  78

  90

  37

  21

  0

  0

  0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  352

  235

  114

  79

  24

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Roxburgh

  315

  247

  191

  207

  213

  223

  166

  200

  208

  259

  261

  233

  154

  Tweeddale

  172

  66

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clackmannan

  190

  133

  73

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Falkirk

  223

  132

  45

  I)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  5

  Stirling

  146

  77

  101

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  12

  Annandale and Eskdale

  283

  247

  274

  311

  330

  347

  275

  270

  323

  364

  332

  288

  264

  Nithsdale

  104

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stewartry

  260

  217

  169

  169

  147

  142

  106

  164

  179

  230

  198

  81

  97

  Wigtown

  241

  164

  96

  5:5

  44

  21

  0

  61

  96

  132

  148

  115

  92

  Dunfermline

  260

  122

  30

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  247

  117

  27

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East Fife

  206

  122

  107

  41

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Aberdeen

  276

  241

  180

  96

  80

  60

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Banff and Buchan

  430

  336

  258

  193

  157

  132

  47

  53

  22

  12

  0

  0

  0

  Gordon

  468

  390

  377

  294

  342

  326

  337

  506

  602

  689

  691

  707

  666

  Kincardine and Deeside

  376

  265

  232

  279

  246

  276

  224

  364

  458

  544

  534

  520

  447

  Moray

  401

  321

  209

  182

  167

  142

  66

  96

  61

  55

  0

  0

  0

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  431

  392

  457

  466

  442

  446

  352

  429

  367

  389

  400

  335

  334

  Caithness

  240

  207

  200

  204

  207

  191

  170

  197

  268

  328

  360

  338

  318

  Inverness

  325

  226

  198

  18:2

  191

  224

  153

  173

  207

  302

  310

  267

  212

  Lochaber

  526

  522

  402

  392

  365

  431

  471

  458

  622

  789

  914

  976

  956

  Low-energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 February 1992]The Scottish Office requires that any new buildings acquired should incorporate low-energy lighting systems. In existing buildings low-energy lighting is fitted wherever possible and this will continue as resources permit when refurbishment work is undertaken.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposed wind-up of the Scottish new towns.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [pursuant to the reply, 29 January 1992, c. 623.] I made orders on 24 February for the wind-up of East Kilbride and Glenrothes development corporations. The orders, which will come into effect on I March 1992, provide for the wind-up of both corporations to be completed by 31 December 1995.

  Housing Support Grants
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount of housing support grant given to each Scottish local authority in each years since 1980 on the basis of the amount of council stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Housing support grant is a deficit subsidy payable to those local housing authorities whose estimated housing revenue account expenditure would otherwise exceed their estimated housing revenue account income. The table shows the grant entitlements of individual authorities in each financial year from 1980–81 to 1992–93 divided by the number of houses to which the relevant housing revenue account in the appropriate year applied or is estimated to apply.
  535

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Nairn

  295

  219

  182

  241

  210

  206

  169

  196

  257

  322

  335

  293

  231

  Ross and Cromarty

  672

  672

  559

  500

  527

  562

  518

  545

  624

  694

  717

  713

  711

  Skye and Lochalsh

  470

  430

  434

  439

  534

  626

  747

  1,010

  1,275

  1,495

  1,606

  1,622

  1,608

  Sutherland

  422

  303

  285

  265

  277

  307

  308

  376

  463

  572

  588

  577

  486

  East Lothian

  311

  194

  130

  67

  26

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Edinburgh

  221

  140

  42

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  14

  Midlothian

  252

  136

  70

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Lothian

  216

  99

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  424

  332

  331

  307

  278

  264

  171

  215

  202

  229

  140

  84

  45

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  251

  106

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  29

  73

  167

  195

  201

  49

  Clydebank

  341

  276

  186

  157

  151

  152

  70

  69

  94

  96

  67

  48

  17

  Clydesdale

  170

  60

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  152

  27

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  175

  79

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cunninghame

  198

  118

  32

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Dumbarton

  213

  89

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Kilbride

  209

  61

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  47

  26

  0

  0

  56

  96

  Eastwood

  152

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  7

  Glasgow

  285

  254

  217

  191

  191

  194

  131

  91

  154

  197

  165

  160

  127

  Hamilton

  218

  141

  67

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Inverclyde

  310

  225

  155

  96

  60

  29

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  10

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  225

  103

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Kyle and Carrick

  237

  155

  50

  25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Monklands

  152

  149

  113

  60

  69

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Motherwell

  205

  143

  83

  26

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Renfrew

  166

  55

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Strathkelvin

  217

  141

  111

  31

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Angus

  298

  172

  86

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dundee

  214

  131

  45

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  190

  80

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Orkney Islands

  729

  758

  591

  509

  531

  549

  463

  513

  605

  568

  588

  478

  283

  Shetland Islands

  755

  993

  1,015

  915

  1,049

  1,054

  1,129

  1,225

  1,427

  1,593

  1,729

  1,811

  1,809

  Western Isles

  505

  519

  541

  703

  762

  881

  883

  1,066

  1,201

  1,579

  1,598

  1,676

  1,841

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pension Age
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has conducted any survey of the proportion of men who would continue working after they reached pension age if it was lowered to 64, 63, 62, 61 and 60 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No; but the discussion document on equalising state pension age contained information on activity rates in this age group, and a survey commissioned by the Department from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will contain further information about individuals who have already retired, or plan to retire, earlier than the current state pension age. Since national insurance retirement pensions are no longer subject to an earnings rule, there is of course no necessary association between the decision whether or not to retire and the decision about whether or not to draw state retirement pension.

  Poll Tax
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in 1991–92 of allowing an earnings disregard of(a) £5 or (b) £10 to occupational pensions in the determination of their poll tax rebate.
  536
  Miss Widdecombe
  Information for 1991–92 consistent with the departmental report could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In line with the overall expenditure forecasts in the departmental report (Cm 1914) the estimated costs at 1992–93 prices and benefit levels would be:

  (a) £35 million

  (b) £65 million

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1987–8–9 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  Training Schemes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances a single parent who is receiving income support can retain their eligibility for that benefit if they participate in European social fund vocational training courses provided either by(a) voluntary organisations or local authorities or (b) training and enterprise councils/local enterprise companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The European social fund provides financial support to training and employment initiatives, including employment training. Lone parents will normally remain eligible for income support while participating in a training course which is funded under the European social fund. However, any payments made in connection with the course will be taken into account in the normal way, depending on whether these are made under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973,
  537
  or are otherwise made on a contractual or voluntary basis. In particular, any training premium, travelling expenses or living away from home allowance paid to employment training participants is disregarded. Those lone parents who are attending a non-government training course and whose youngest child is aged 16 or over will normally be required to be available for employment or to provide medical evidence that they are incapable of work.

  Claimants

  Men

  Percentage change

  Women

  Percentage change

  All people

  Percentage change

  2 June 1979

  SB

  355,500

  -10·8

  132,300

  0·2

  487,800

  -8·0

  IVB

  504,500

  9-1

  106,500

  10·0

  611,000

  9·3

  31 May 1980

  SB

  312,900

  -110

  137,400

  3·9

  450,000

  -7-7

  IVB

  506,200

  0·3

  108,800

  22

  615,000

  07

  30 May 1981

  SB

  289,990

  -7·3

  119,994

  -127

  409,984

  -9·0

  IVB

  516,511

  2·0

  116,464

  7·0

  632,975

  2·9

  29 May 1982

  SB

  317,740

  9·6

  151,433

  26-2

  469,173

  14·4

  IVB

  553,107

  7-1

  130,400

  12-0

  683,507

  8·0

  2 April 1983

  SB

  280,675

  -11-7

  126,923

  -16·2

  407,598

  -13·1

  IVB

  592,907

  72

  144,007

  10·4

  736,914

  7·8

  31 March 1984

  SB

  173,300

  -38·3

  74,200

  -41·5

  247,500

  -39·3

  IVB

  638,300

  7·7

  159,100

  10·5

  797,400

  8·2

  30 March 1985

  SB

  156,954

  -9·4

  68,254

  -0·8

  225,208

  -9·0

  IVB

  672,681

  5·4

  176,667

  11·0

  849,348

  6·5

  5 April 1986

  SB

  162,200

  3·3

  75,300

  10-3

  237,500

  5·5

  IVB

  706,100

  5·0

  193,300

  9·4

  899,400

  5·9

  4 April 1987

  SB

  123,000

  -24·2

  64,200

  -14·7

  187,200

  -212

  IVB

  754,400

  6·8

  213,600

  10·5

  968,000

  7·6

  2 April 1988

  SB

  137,600

  11·9

  90,200

  405

  227,800

  21·7

  IVB

  807,800

  7·1

  239,700

  122

  1,047,500

  82

  1 April 1989

  SB

  151,600

  10·2

  114,800

  27·3

  266,400

  16·9

  IVB

  859,700

  6·4

  266,400

  11·1

  1,126,100

  7·5

  31 March 1990

  SB

  168,900

  11·4

  139,800

  21·8

  308,700

  15·9

  IVB

  916,900

  6·7

  292,500

  9·8

  1,209,400

  7·4

  Notes:

  1. SB =sickness benefit.

  2. IVB = invalidity benefit.

  3. Figures based on a l per cent. sample of claimants at the dates given.

  4. From 6 April 1983 statutory sick pay was introduced for a maximum of eight weeks sickness absence in a tax year. From 6 April 1986 statutory sick pay is payable for up to 28 weeks in any one period of incapacity for work.

  5. Totals include people not entitled to sickness or invalidity benefit, but who receive incapacity credits.

  Vocational Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether a person who has been paid a training allowance on a European social fund-funded vocational training course provided by a voluntary organisation or local authority, who was immediately prior to entry to the training scheme receiving a disability benefit can immediately requalify for that disability benefit when he or she finishes the course; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) in what circumstances a person who is receiving either severe disability allowance, invalidity benefit or income support with a disability premium, may retain his or her eligibility for that benefit if he or she participates in European social fund vocational training courses provided either by (a) voluntary organisations or local authorities or (b) training and enterprise councils/local enterprise companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The European social fund provides financial support to training and employment initiatives, including employment training.

  A participant in employment training receives a training allowance which maintains the same level of payment as severe disablement allowance, invalidity benefit, or income support with a disability premium, in payment immediately before the start of the course, plus a £10 training premium.

  Sickness and Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the numbers of(a) men, (b) women and (c) in total claiming (i) sickness benefit and (ii) invalidity benefit each year since 1979; and what was the percentage change each year in each category.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table:

  A participant in a non-government course partly funded by the European social fund, who is in receipt of severe disablement allowance or invalidity benefit, must continue to satisfy the normal conditions of entitlement for those benefits. The principal condition is that the person must continue to be incapable of work.

  A person receiving income support with a disability premium may retain eligibility for the premium, whatever the nature of the training, if he is blind or receiving attendance or mobility allowance or, from April, disability living allowance. In addition, a person who was entitled to a disability premium before he started employment training because he had invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance, or had been incapable of work for 28 weeks or more, may continue to be entitled to the premium during that training even if they are no longer treated as incapable of work.

  Where a person's invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance has been withdrawn, due to attendance at a non-government funded course, he may requalify immediately where the break has been for eight weeks or less.

  Entitlement to industrial injuries benefit, mobility allowance, attendance allowance (from April, disability living allowance) and the basic war disablement pension are unaffected whatever type of training a person undertakes.
  539
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances unemployed claimants who are receiving(a) unemployment benefit and (b) income support can participate in European social fund vocational training courses which lead to national vocational qualifications or credits towards them without losing their entitlement to their benefit payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Unemployment benefit (UB) claimants must continue to satisfy the normal conditions of entitlement in order to receive UB while engaged in training. This means that they must continue to seek work actively during the course and be prepared to terminate the course immediately a job vacancy becomes available.

  Income support claimants undertaking non-governmental training courses must continue to satisfy the normal conditions of entitlement. The principal conditions are the availability for work and actively seeking work requirements, as for UB. Those participating in governmental training courses such as those provided under the employment training programme are exempt from the availability and actively seeking work conditions for income support purposes. The European social fund may contribute financial support to either governmental or non-governmental courses.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new regulations and procedures were introduced to protect the benefits and training premium of unemployed income support claimants who participated in employment training; and which of' these regulations apply to any benefits or training allowances received by an unemployed income support claimant who participates in a European social fund-funded vocational training course provided either by(a) voluntary organisations or local authorities, or by (b) training and enterprise councils/local enterprise companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  A participant in employment training (ET) receives a training allowance which maintains the same level of payment as the income support or unemployment benefit in payment immediately before the start of the course plus a £10 training premium. Income support participants continue to qualify for housing benefit and the range of other benefits to which income support is a passport. The training premium, any traveling—and usually living away from home—expenses reimbursed to the claimant, are also disregarded in the calculation of income for income support purposes. A participant in a non-governmental course who is in receipt of income support or unemployment benefit, must continue to satisfy the normal conditions of entitlement for benefits for unemployment. The principal conditions are that the participant must continue to seek work actively during the course and be prepared to terminate the course immediately a job vacancy becomes available to him.

  The European social fund provides financial support to a wide range of training and employment initiatives, both governmental—including ET—and non-governmental. The benefit rules apply regardless of the type of organisation providing the course.

  Family Credit
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how employed status youth training or employment training trainees should make a claim for family credit; what is the best information he has about the number of employed status trainees who are claiming family credit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Employed status YT and ET trainees can make a claim for family credit on form FC1 in the same way as any other employed person. No information is available about the number of employed status trainees receiving family credit.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department, including its agencies, asks staff to complete questionnaires on their ethnic origins on a voluntary basis. As at 1 April 1991, 3,331 of the 67,178 staff who have responded to the questionnaire were from ethnic minorities.

  As at 1 June 1991, the Department, including its agencies, employed 84,152 staff of whom 1,465 were registered as disabled. There is no information on staff with disabilities who choose not to register.

  Child Benefit
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the objectives of child benefit.

  Mr. Jack
  Child benefit is paid to all families with children in recognition of the fact that at all levels of income such families face greater expenditure than others. It is, and will remain, a strong element in our policies for family support. For less well-off families, this universal help is supplemented by extra help through the income-related benefits.

  Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what class of national insurance credits people who are being paid a training allowance and are participating in a European social fund course run by a local authority or voluntary organisation are entitled; how they ensure that they are credited with them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  An individual participating in a European social fund course will be entitled to Class l national insurance credits for each week of training, provided that he reached the age of 18 before the beginning of the tax year in which the course commenced, the course is full time and, at the outset, it was not expected to continue for more than 12 months.

  People on training courses run by a local authority or voluntary organisation which satisfy the conditions for the award of credits should make an individual application for these credits. Form CF55C for this purpose may be obtained from the Department's local offices.

  Sign Language
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff in Department of Social Security offices have sign language skills.

  Mr. Scott
  The provision of customer services in local offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, and Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. They will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies of their letters will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners were dependent on supplementary benefit in Scotland in 1979; and how many were dependent on income support on the latest date for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In November 1979 there were 160,000 supplementary benefit claim units in Scotland with a claimant or partner aged 60 or over. In May 1990, there were 168,000 income support claim units in Scotland with a claimant or partner aged 60 or over as recent improvements in income support have enabled more less well-off pensioners to become entitled.
  542
  Note: In 1990 there were 25,000 more people in Scotland aged 60 or over than in 1979.

  Source: Supplementary Benefit Annual Statistical Inquiry November 1979.

  Income Support Annual Statistical Inquiry May 1990.

  Income Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in 1992–93 of(a) restoring entitlement to income support for all 16 and 17-year-olds, at the current benefit rate for under 25-year-olds and (b) raising the income support personal allowance for people aged 18 to 24 years to the level of the personal allowance for those aged 25 years and over.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]Information on the cost of restoring entitlement to income support to 16 and 17-year-olds is not available.

  The estimated cost of increasing the rate for 18 to 24-year-olds to that paid to people aged 25 or over is £340 million.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1987, 1988 and 1989 family expenditure surveys and the Department's annual statistical inquiry for 1990, at 1992–93 prices and benefit levels.

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

Housing Completions 1991
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many new houses and flats were completed in the United Kingdom in 1991.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch);The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch); My Lords, it is provisionally estimated that 183,000 dwellings were completed in the United Kingdom in 1991.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as almost every year between 1945 and the 1970s over a quarter of a million houses were built on average, is that not a rather disappointing figure? Can the Minister say how many of those new houses were to let rather than for sale?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not have specific figures in relation to the noble Lord's latter question, but I shall do what I can to obtain them for him.
It is also worth noting that in 1961 each household comprised 3.09 people. Since that time the figure has fallen due to a number of factors and social trends: children leaving home and living in separate accommodation, broken marriages, young people living with partners and then breaking up, and the number of young pregnant girls, who have priority on housing lists. A number of factors make it particularly difficult to cope with the rising demand for housing.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, has the Minister seen a very interesting study produced by a well-known international firm of chartered accountants, Arthur Andersen, which, in relation to public accounts, refers to the need to distinguish between capital and current expenditure? While I would be the last person to ignore cash limits, having introduced them, does the Minister accept the further point made in that report that if we applied commercial methods of accounting we might find more money for public borrowing for investment in, for example, housing?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I certainly understand the distinction between current and capital expenditure. That is very much behind the call—which I have no doubt we shall hear before the end of this Question—for the use of capital receipts. It also has to be said that large sums of money are being spent, both in capital and current expenditure, by housing associations and local authorities. In 1991–92 capital expenditure in housing investment is £4.3 billion the housing revenue subsidy is £3.7 billion and rising all the time and there is also housing corporation expenditure. At the end of the day it is all money and it has to be met by the taxpayer. We believe that we have to live within what the taxpayer can afford. If
262
there is any argument for additional expenditure from noble Lords on the other side of the House we are eager to hear their plans.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figure she quoted in her Answer represents less than half the annual output which informed people dealing with the housing problem consider necessary and that it is felt that the target should be nearer half a million houses a year? Has the Minister had time to familiarise herself with a report which has been released today by the citizens advice bureaux on the basis of a survey of country areas which shows an appalling shortage—in fact a nil factor—of housing being provided in such areas? What will the Minister do about that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am very familiar with the report which has been issued today by the citizens advice bureaux. I should preface any comment by saying what a marvellous job they do in advising people on a range of matters and particularly regarding housing. The report is specifically concerned with rural housing. The Government believe that that is an important sector of housing. Housing corporation funding is to rise to over £2 billion a year, and a special part of that programme relates to rural housing the special housing corporation rural programme for villages with populations below 3,000 is to increase to 2,250 approvals a year special capital allocations to rural local authorities, which amounted to £50 million this year, to produce 1,500 houses, will be increased by a further £30 million we have provided support for the Rural Housing Trust and planning concessions for low-cost rural housing on sites where commercial housing would not normally be permitted. In addition, we have encouraged local authorities, when working with developers, to include affordable housing in developments. We are doing a great deal to ensure that housing is available to people in rural areas.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Question relates to 1991, but can the Minister say something about the future because the construction industry is in grave trouble, primarily because of the slump in housing? Is she aware that in the Macmillan era, which is not so long ago—at least I remember it—the construction of 330,000 houses in any one year was regarded as normal? Many noble Lords opposite who are supporters of the party occupying that Front Bench will remember that very well. I beg the Minister to say something about the future to give the construction industry a lift?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not for me to pre-empt Budgets in that respect. However, I can say that in the public housing sector, as I have already said, it is planned that housing corporation output should increase from 22,000 houses to 51,000 by 1993. We believe in doing what we can in relation to the public housing sector. I should like to make one point regarding the private housing sector. There is a great deal of private housing still without buyers. Those houses will have to be sold and that capacity taken up before there is any buoyancy in the construction

263
industry. I shall start where the noble Lord finished: yes, there is a problem in the construction industry and that is well recognised.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that it is a widespread view that one of the major causes of the increase in homelessness is the shortage of affordable housing? Will she further accept the widely held opinion that one way to provide affordable housing is to allow councils to spend the money that they receive from selling council property to replace their stock? In the present pre-election atmosphere, when many promises are being made, will the Government promise to accede to demands from all over the country that councils now be allowed to spend their own money?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are doing a great deal to boost affordable housing for young people. Demand will always outstrip the amount that we can provide, given that the taxpayer has to foot the bill. With regard to spending of capital receipts, I have said many times that capital receipts are greatest where housing needs are least; where housing needs are the greatest, capital receipts are the least. Therefore we use another system to target resources on areas with the greatest need.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister gave a considered reply to my noble friend Lord Barnett. Will she confirm that the Government and the Department of the Environment have considered the report produced by Arthur Andersen on public accounting and how it should be managed and studied in particular the distinction between capital and revenue receipts and how they should be handled? If so, will they give a considered reply? If they have not done so, will the Minister do the House the favour perhaps of reading it and giving us a reply?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are aware of the report. We have read it. I do not have a specific response in relation to spending on housing. However, I have given noble Lords the answer that capital spending is buoyant and revenue spending is buoyant. All spending has to be funded by the taxpayer and at the end of the day our primary concern must be for those who foot the bill. Deciding whether one capitalises spending or puts it on current account must he a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor.

Apprenticeship Programmes
2.45 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are assisting companies that are reducing their workforces to maintain apprenticeship programmes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government are providing very considerable support to companies which are committed to
264
training their young recruits. In this way we are supporting many employer-based apprenticeships and other forms of high quality training. The primary responsibility for managing their young trainees, however, rests with employers.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that reply. Will he accept that it is vital for the Government's current policy to continue? Companies that employ apprentices must be helped because those apprentices in turn will be the craftsmen who will help us to get out of the recession. Will he confirm that the current policy of the Government will continue and that apprentices will be encouraged, acknowledging that they are the craftsmen of the future?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that government support will continue. There are around 300,000 people currently on the Government's youth training programme in Great Britain. Also, in January 1992 the CBI Industrial Trends Survey showed that 82 per cent. of firms expected to increase or maintain their investment in training over the next 12 months. I believe that that is a very good reply.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that response. With regard to employer-based training, is he aware that according to my information only 40 per cent. of placements are in practice employer based and that both the TUC and the CBI are concerned about the lack of employer placements in a time of recession? What can be done to assist employers in that situation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is vital for YT placements to be backed up by opportunities for work placements. It is in the interest of employers to continue to train young people because industry will need their skills as the economy turns round. The Government look firmly to TECs to use their unique influence with their business colleagues to ensure that work placements are available.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Viscount clear up a problem that has arisen in regard to the discrepancy between what we are told in the press and what we understand from Answers in your Lordships' House? We are constantly told by the press that the TECs are receiving and are expected to receive less money. The Government say that they are maintaining the money given to the TECs. Which is true? They cannot both be true.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with regard to funding for youth training, the Government are investing the same amounts: £859 million in 1991–92, which includes £17 million extra from the Spring Supplementary Estimate, and £851 million in 1992–93. That indicates that the spending is roughly the same, bearing in mind that the staying-on rate at school has increased and that the number of young people is decreasing.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the noble Viscount be good enough to say something nice about the Construction Industry Training Board which is working hard, despite the present deep recession, and turning out quite a lot of people?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall be happy to say something nice about the CITB. Employers in scope of the CITB can claim grants from the CITB for trainees during the first two years of their training. It is greatly to the credit of the CITB that it announced a series of measures amounting to £6.5 million in July 1991 to counter the effects of the recession. I hope that that is nice enough for the noble Lord.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that existing apprentices are the craftsmen of the future? Would it not be good for our Government to work with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry? They know that if we do not look at our apprenticeship programme we shall have no specialist workers to produce the goods that will be badly needed to overcome the recession as we come out of it.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government recognise that they need to provide quality training for young people. That is why they have been developing a comprehensive system of national vocational qualifications. It is anticipated that by the end of the year about 80 per cent. of employees will have qualifications accredited in their area of competence.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is not the true answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Seear that the Government maintain grants to TECs in absolute terms but not expenditure in real terms?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I attempted to answer the question put by the noble Baroness by indicating that the staying-on rate at school is greatly increasing and that the number of youngsters applying for YT is decreasing. We are maintaining the same amount of money, which will be devoted to a smaller number of people.

Developing Countries: Debt Repayments
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give the figures of money received by the UK in 1990 in debt repayments from developing countries and indicate what part is classed as bank write-offs.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the total of debt repayments from developing countries to the UK Government during 1990 was £419.5 million, comprising £326.5 million of payments to the ECGD and approximately £93 million to the ODA. Figures for debt repayments to, and write-offs by, the commercial banks are not available.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Question results from a long series of questions to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who I
266
hope has not retired injured from the fray. I have been trying to encourage the Government to analyse for the House the balance between what is sent abroad from this country to the developing countries in the form of aid, private investment and so on, and what is received by this country. We still do not have those figures. It is only a fortnight since the noble Earl told us that the interest payments from developing countries to the United Kingdom were only £232 million. How does that figure compare with those that the noble Lord has just given to the House?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caithness enjoys robust health. Neither he nor I are trying to conceal anything. If we could provide aggregate figures we certainly would. Details of individual developing countries' accounts are, of course, protected by banking confidentiality. Both the 1991 ODA annual review and British aid statistics for 1986–1990 provide figures that suggest that Britain received £2.5 billion more in 1990 than we paid out. The year 1990 is the first year for which the figure for total net financial flows has been negative, but the outward flows figure has been decreasing over recent years because of an increase in the volume of bank debt write-offs. The figure primarily due arises from the large negative net bank lending figure of £6.1 billion which overshadows other flows. When a bank writes off a debt it appears as a negative flow and looks as though the debt has been repaid.
It may help if I tell the noble Lord that the Bank of England will be collecting more data on bank write-offs for the overseas sector from 1993 and it will be easier to obtain those statistics.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider the response that he gave on banking confidentiality? He rightly said that the Bank of England will collect statistics on provisions and write-offs on third world debt. Will he confirm that global figures for the banking system are not the subject of commercial confidentiality? Only individual banking figures would be the subject of that problem.
Furthermore, will he tell us exactly how write-offs —which means that the bank says, "We shall never get this loan back"—compare with provisions on which the bank says, "We may get this loan back in the future"?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right about what banks may regard as confidential and not confidential. When in 1993 these statistics are collected they will not be able to identify developing countries individually.
I have no information on the second question raised by the noble Lord. I shall see—I cannot promise it—whether I am able to fill out that answer.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that during the exchanges with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I quoted figures by Christian Aid taken from the official figures of ODA. They indicated that the inflow to this country from developing countries exceeded the outflow by £2,493 million. I asked the noble Earl whether he could confirm or deny those figures. Today we still do not have an answer to

267
that question. The noble Earl spoke of figures being distorted by bank write-offs. Therefore, I naturally ask what those bank write-offs are so that we may attain a clear picture as to whether there are more resources coming into this country from developing countries than are going out from this country to developing countries. That is the crux of the issue. We still do not have an answer.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, no, the noble Lord is absolutely right. In defence of my noble friend, he accepted the statistics proposed and their source and they remain true. I am unable to answer whether the figures after the distortions have been taken into account represent an outflow or an inflow. I am afraid that that information is not available.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, has my noble friend judged whether the Question asked by the noble Lord implies that the underdeveloped countries are making contributions towards the upkeep of the United Kingdom? Is that what he is saying?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I believe that there is a suggestion along those lines but until the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is specific I am unable to help my noble friend.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I have been specific on two consecutive occasions in the past two weeks. I accept that the noble Lord cannot find the figures. Will he put it quite clearly to his department that those figures have been quoted from government sources? Will his department now break down those figures to show the real position with regard to inflow and outflow of resources between this country and the underdeveloped territories?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I implore the noble Lord to read my Answer. I gave the reasons why at present I am not in a position to give that information. No amount of searching by my department will reveal that information. It is hoped that better statistics will be available in the future as I have made clear.

Water Privatisation: Exchequer Receipts
2.59 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total money received by the Exchequer as a result of the privatisation of the water industry and how this total compares with the valuation recently published by the National Audit Office.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the National Audit Office report published on 14th February 1992 relates to the arrangements made for privatising the water authorities and refers to a number of factors affecting the valuation of the industry. As the report indicates, net Exchequer receipts are expected to total some £3.6 billion.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Appendix 5 the figure of valuation was not £3.6 billion but £5.25 billion? Will the Minister inform the House why the Government have reneged on their corporate responsibility to safeguard the finances of the taxpayers and ratepayers of this country who lost those assets without compensation? Why have the Government taken such a course? Is it not clear that there has been a monumental dereliction of duty?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord singled out the appendix. I should have preferred him to take the appendix as supporting the conclusions of the National Audit Office. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State had two primary duties. The first was to establish a regulatory regime in order to allow the companies to finance their functions and to create a reasonable return. His second duty was to protect the interest of consumers, which he did by putting in place a price control regime. As regards the illustrative figures to which we are referring, the conclusions of the report state:
"The illustrative net proceeds used in the Department's calculations were based on hypothetical assumptions and were not seen as achievable in practice … However, given their hypothetical nature, the final outcome cannot be judged against the large movement in illustrative proceeds which occurred during the regulatory process … The Department therefore managed to achieve the successful establishment and privatisation of 10 companies within a new regulatory regime. This was a notable achievement indeed".
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that she has made no case for distributing nearly £1.8 billion of public money to people in the private sector? She will have to do better to convince Members of this House and the public that that was not a dereliction of duty of the worst kind.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the audit report acquitted the Government totally of the noble Lord's allegation. Furthermore, it commended the Government for the exercise which they undertook. It commented on timing but it commended the Government for their achievement. We now have 10 successfully privatised companies with a programme of £28 billion to be spent during the next 10 years. That could not have been achieved by keeping those companies within the public sector. It will be interesting to know whether that is what the noble Lord's party plans to do if it should ever come to power.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that this squalid deal, which resulted in selling off the authorities at a much lower price, was done without the consent of the taxpayer, even after the injection of some £1.5 billion of public funds into the companies concerned and a wholly unauthorised write-off of £5 billion owed to the National Loan Board?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord also takes one illustrative figure and does his sums on that basis. The net proceeds into the Exchequer were £3.6

269
billion. Today the National Economic Development Council has produced an in-depth study on the water companies. It states:
"The overall conclusion of this study is that the future potential for the UK water industry is extremely good and that on the whole the industry is responding well to the challenge brought about by the restructuring of the industry following privatisation in 1989 and by the substantial increase in the levels of capital expenditure".
I believe that that report acquits the Government and that the Government acted with entire propriety throughout the whole exercise.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Minister has queried figures that I cited to her as being purely illustrative. If she reads the report she will find that the figures which I gave were not illustrative but were actually carried out in fact: that £1.5 billion of taxpayers' money was provided and that more than £5 billion was written off the loan to the National Loan Board.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall read from a different part of the report which states:
"The estimates of illustrative proceeds at this stage were provisional and subject to a number of caveats … There was no suggestion that these proceeds could be realised for any particular profile".
The noble Lord is using illustrative tables and coming to a hypothetical, so-called loss to the public purse. I am afraid that he is entirely wrong.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that figures and statistics bandied haphazardly across the Floor of this House are sometimes confusing to some of us? Is she also aware of any squalid impropriety in a deal which saved the water industry from a situation which the European Commission was not prepared to tolerate?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. To call the exercise "squalid" was unacceptable parliamentary language in this context. The report is in the public domain. Everything which the Government did in floating the water authorities is also in the public domain, as are all the figures. It is for people to make up their own minds, but squalid the exercise was not.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, apart from the use of unacceptable parliamentary language, would my noble friend think it interesting to examine, perhaps with the Leader of the House, the questions that have been asked this afternoon because they are notable for their lack of interrogatives?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a matter for my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister understands such issues much better than I do. First, will she accept that, on reading the document, it appeared to me that the net proceeds were £3.6 billion and that the assets were worth a good deal more? Will she accept that some of us who are less expert than she is came to that conclusion? Secondly, the Minister said that the effect of the exercise was to help the consumer. Is it not the case that water privatisation has led to a series of monopolies? Is it not also the case
270
that the price being charged to the consumer has risen drastically in real terms and that therefore, having obtained the asset at those low prices, the owners of the companies are exploiting their monopoly power at the expense of the consumer?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the Government have achieved all their objectives in floating the water authorities. We have a most buoyant water industry, unfettered by Treasury rules, which is achieving all the objectives that the Government set for it. I entirely refute the noble Lord's comment that at the time the water authorities were worth more. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State took advice throughout the whole process. A price was set on the shares three weeks prior to flotation, a 10 per cent. premium was set and the shares came in below that premium. I believe that that was an accurate assessment on the part of my right honourable friend.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of my noble friends Lady Seccombe and Lord Wade of Chorlton. 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 short debate in the name of my noble friend Lady Seccombe all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of nine minutes and in that of my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton 12 minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that when the clock indicates five minutes the sixth minute has already commenced.

Opportunities for Women
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe rose to call attention to the increasing economic, social and cultural opportunities for women and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am delighted to have been given the privilege and the opportunity to open this debate as it gives us the chance to look at the developing role of women today. All noble Lords have lived long enough to witness the amazing changes which have occurred in society. Some of the most amazing are those which have produced ever-increasing opportunities for women to play a fuller part in every area of national life. Indeed, some Members of your Lordships' House played a significant part in helping to create and develop those opportunities. I pay particular tribute to those who have given enthusiastic encouragement and support to younger women.
There has been a remarkable change in the circumstances of women during this century. It is astounding to remember that some of us were born before all women had the right to vote; that right was

271
given to them only in 1928. The same percentage of women worked outside the home—or to use the horrid current jargon were "economically active"—in 1882 as in 1982. However, what a difference there is in their occupations. In 1882 most women were domestic servants or factory workers. Now there are women in all the professions and many in business and industry.
The women among us can all think of the opportunities which have presented themselves in our own lives. That may include the voluntary sector where women have always played and continue to play a major role in public life. Sometimes that can involve more hours and responsibilities than a full-time job and is always in addition to work within or outside the home.
I do not see myself as a champion of an oppressed minority, for women make up 52 per cent. of the population. Certainly I do not see women as being oppressed. Many of the opportunities which have helped women help men too. But the barriers to opportunity have historically impeded women's progress more than that of men so that women have gained proportionately more as those barriers have been brought down.
To increase women's contributions to society does not just help women; it enriches life for everyone. Women bring different and valuable perceptions to bear on issues and problems. When we talk of their opportunities we are not talking of the world at work but we are talking of the extension of opportunities and of choice which recognises the importance of all roles which women play in domestic as well as professional life.
The best thing that any government can do for all their citizens is to create a climate in which all may benefit. Since 1979 this Government have provided a climate which has particularly helped women. First, we have reformed the tax system. We have brought in independent taxation for married women, giving them more control over and privacy in their financial affairs. Last year the Government abolished composite rate tax. That means that many married women no longer need to pay any tax on their bank or building society income. That measure is particularly helpful to many pensioners.
The 1991 budget also increased child benefit, which was first introduced by a Conservative Government. From this April it will rise to £9.65 per week for the first child and £7.80 for subsequent children. From now on the benefit will be increased in line with inflation. That is a highly significant benefit because it is universal and paid to the caring parent who is usually, but certainly not always, the mother. All those factors help to increase women's economic security.
There has been a significant growth of opportunities for women in the workplace. Britain now has a higher proportion of women in employment than any other European country except Denmark. The statistics are remarkable. Women now make up almost 45 per cent. of Britain's labour force and 25 per cent. of the self-employed.
Since 1979 the number of self-employed women has
272
more than doubled and a third of the entrants to the enterprise allowance scheme are female. The number of women in the key professions has risen dramatically. For example, the number of women solicitors rose from 5,175 in 1983 to 12,683 in 1989. In fact, last year more women than men qualified as solicitors.
Those developments have been possible because the Government have led the way in creating a framework which offers flexibility and generates opportunity. We have strengthened the UK's traditional framework which promotes equality of opportunity and equal treatment for women and men. The Equal Opportunities Commission—almost unique in the EC —offers free advice and help to anyone, man or woman, who feels that he or she has suffered discrimination. We play a full part in EC discussions and actions on equal opportunities in Brussels where UK good practice is acknowledged.
As an employer the Government have been foremost in developing flexible working patterns which help women so much. That is particularly true, for example, within the NHS, which is Britain's and Europe's largest employer, employing I million staff, three-quarters of whom are women.
The Government work to change attitudes too. In each government department there is now a Minister, one of whose tasks is to promote the appointment of women to public appointments within that department. The Prime Minister showed his personal commitment when he launched Opportunity 2000 last October. That is a campaign co-ordinated by Business in the Community in which over 80 leading companies have pledged themselves to increasing the quality and quantity of women in the workforce. Many of the barriers, which initiatives like those address, involve attitudes.
We are also working to remove some of the practical barriers to women's progress. Opportunities in employment often follow from opportunities in education. The new national curriculum ensures that in an increasingly technological society girls will have as much opportunity as boys to study science from an early age. The technical and vocational education initiative has worked to encourage girls to embark on scientific careers. The main government training programme, employment training and youth training, includes special schemes to help women back to work or to enter non-traditional jobs.
All that has produced results. There are now 100,000 more women in higher education compared with a little over a decade ago. More women than men are now starting university courses—97,000 women in 1991 compared with 92,000 men. Many of them are studying subjects less traditionally pursued by women. In 1988 12 per cent. of engineering students were women compared with only 5 per cent. in 1978. That is all good news. Not only does it increase opportunities for women but their contributions will also enrich every area of national life.
There are other practical barriers to women's success namely, those health issues which are unique to women. In 1990 nearly 14,000 women died of breast cancer so our efforts to deal with those problems are

273
of the greatest importance. We are the first country in the European Community to launch nationwide screening programmes for breast and cervical cancer.
Woman's most important role is undeniably that of mother. We need to create a climate of opinion in which all choices are respected and all roles valued. Many women want to concentrate, at least in the early years, on looking after their children. Many, through choice or necessity, combine that traditional role with a job outside the home and see no conflict between the two. That is why significant developments over the past 12 years—initiatives like part-time work, flexi-time, career breaks and job sharing—have literally transformed the lives of many women and their families.
The number of women working part time has increased by over one fifth since 1984. The Labour Force Survey of 1988 showed that eight out of 10 women working part-time specifically wanted a part time rather than a full-time job. As those flexible lifestyles develop, women are often combining their work outside the home with their traditional work of carer. To meet that need there has been a significant growth in child care provision, much of it from the private and voluntary sectors. Over 90 per cent. of all three and four year-olds are now in education or some form of organised day care. Of course, that figure includes playgroups and short sessions at nursery school. But that is just as important for many mothers and children as full-time care. Over 1 million of our three and four year-olds have places in nursery schools, private day nurseries or with childminders.
Comparisons between countries can never be exact. Most statistical comparisons tend to concentrate on child care provided and funded by the public sector. In this country we have developed a different pattern of day-care services with a vital contribution from voluntary bodies and the private sector—a contribution which provides variety and flexibility. The richness and diversity of child care places us near the top of the European table for that kind of provision.
The Government have also helped. The 1990 Budget introduced tax incentives for those using workplace nurseries, encouraging employers to provide them. The Civil Service has 19 workplace nurseries. Of course, not all women are bringing up children or pursuing careers. Many are having to care for elderly or infirm relatives who are often demanding, requiring much patience, understanding and love. Those carers' needs also are being met.
Since 1979 local authority spending on personal social services, with government support, has risen by 59 per cent. after allowing for inflation. Over that time we have seen a substantial increase in home helps, day centre places for the elderly and in the number of district nurses. Helping carers is a top priority for this Government.
We do not believe that women's concerns should be put into some pigeon hole labelled, "Women's issues". All issues are women's issues. Women's needs and concerns are as diverse and all-embracing as those of men. The right honourable lady in the other place, the Minister of State at the Home Office, continually finds
274
that view endorsed as she pursues her Network initiative, meeting women of differing backgrounds and experience throughout the country.
We, both men and women, have our own special and individual contribution to make. I hope that noble Lords on both sides of the House will join me in welcoming the exciting growth of opportunities which are enabling women to contribute, thereby enriching the lives of us all. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Seccombe for allowing us to debate this important matter. When one sees the enormous contribution made by women in all fields of life in the country today, it is hard to comprehend how crippling were the disabilities from which they suffered only a comparatively short time ago.
Until the middle of the 19th century a married woman could not own property let alone vote. But one does not have to go back a century one has only to go back a few decades to find a time when it was commonplace for women with good jobs and incomes to be refused mortgages, for women to need male guarantors to countersign contracts and for women to lose their jobs on marriage.
We have come a long way, and today our Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts provide a legal framework of equal rights. Our Equal Opportunities Commission helps in the enforcement of those rights and in the promotion of a climate in which women can take advantage of all the opportunities which may become available to them.
I want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle for the work they did leading the Equal Opportunities Commission. It is an organisation for which a little time ago I had some responsibility. I remember in particular how keen my noble friend was to see that in schools girls lacked no encouragement to embark on science and engineering courses. How right she was!
We now see women reaching the top in all the fields which traditionally were male dominated. For instance, look at the achievement of Helen Sharman, picked to be the first Briton in space. And another less dramatic but more important milestone was passed last October when more women than men embarked on degree courses at British universities. In fact, as my noble friend said, there are now 100,000 more women at our universities than there were in 1979.
A growing number of women want a career at work, but not all. Many women still find fulfilment in all the work they do in the home: many want to devote all their time and energy to their children when their children are growing up. It is not our job to dissuade them from that course any more than it is our job to persuade women at work to stay at home. When it comes to the structure of taxation and benefits it is our job to adopt a balanced approach which helps each woman to choose what suits her and her family best.
The Government therefore introduced family credit to help families with low earnings; we have maintained child benefit (which we also introduced) to help both those who choose to work and those who

275
choose not; and, as my noble friend Lady Seccombe also said, we have introduced independent taxation for married women and abolished the composite rate of tax on savings in banks and building societies. The last change alone benefited 5 million women.
As a major employer the Government have a clear duty to observe high standards and to set an example to others. They have not failed in that duty, the Civil Service being described in a Hansard Society Commission Report of 1990 as a model for other employers. And I am glad to say that the Civil Service has had a programme of action since 1984 which has produced a steady increase in the number of women in more senior posts. With rising numbers of women entrants to the fast stream, more and more will be in the top jobs as the years go by. Since 1986 the National Health Service has also taken a number of initiatives to improve prospects for its women employees.
The Government must not just set an example for others, but give them encouragement to follow that example. I know how pleased my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was to give his and his Government's support to Opportunity 2000, Business in the Community's campaign to improve opportunities for women in industry at all levels, particularly management. The major employers taking part in Opportunity 2000 deserve our congratulations. They, and I think most employers, recognise that not only have they a moral duty to act fairly to women in their workforce, but also they owe it to themselves to do so. Women are now nearly half the labour force and it is expected that they will account for virtually all the growth in the numbers in work in the coming decade. Those concerns which wish to survive will therefore have to follow the best practice in order to attract and retain female staff.
There has been an encouraging growth of schemes in both the public and the private sector to enable staff to have more flexible career patterns. Flexible working hours, career breaks, part-time work—all referred to by my noble friend—and job sharing are all becoming more common and are greatly to be welcomed. By removing outmoded restrictions on women's employment, the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 and the Employment Act 1989 have enabled both employers and their staff to adopt working practices which suit their circumstances. It is now most important that the Government should not interfere with this new found flexibility or impose burdens on employers which would make it more difficult to take on people either full or part time.
Women would be the first to lose if the Government were to impose fresh burdens on employers as a result of a statutory minimum wage, statutory parental leave or the adoption of the part-time work directive as currently drafted. Over 1½ million part-time jobs have been created in this country since 1983 giving new opportunities to workers to join the workforce. It has happened because we have avoided some of the restrictions imposed in other countries. The last thing we need, and the last thing women need, is that we should be forced down the same road.
276
There is no doubt that one of the most important issues for many working women is child care. What is needed is high quality provision giving choice and flexibility. This can only be obtained through the involvement of the whole range of interested parties, individuals, families, employers, voluntary organisations, private sector providers and local authorities. Variety in care provision as well as in working arrangements is the hallmark of the British scene and allows parents to choose what suits their circumstances best at any given time. But expenditure on under-fives by local authorities alone is up by 45 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
I believe that I have said enough about how the Government are helping women in the field of employment. I want to mention finally the commitment of women to public life. Women make an enormous contribution. As a result of various government initiatives the proportion of women on public bodies has been rising over the years and has now reached nearly a quarter. But we are determined to do better than this. An edict has gone out from the Prime Minister telling his Cabinet colleagues that in each department a Minister must be personally responsible for seeing more women get public appointments and that women must be on every short list for public appointments or a very good reason advanced for that not being so.
I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised this all-important subject. I wish that I could have covered further subjects, but I know that there are many noble Lords who wish to speak in this debate. Once again I thank noble Lords for listening to me and my noble friend for initiating this debate.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, for introducing this debate this afternoon. Of course there have been substantial gains. Thirty years ago it was the normal practice for employers to have two rates of pay, one for men and a much lesser one for women. Employers providing pension benefits did not think that these had to include women. A woman on her own had little chance of living independently or negotiating a mortgage to enable her to do so. So there have been gains in the past 30 years and a great deal of the change has been due to the efforts of women themselves.
I should like to take this opportunity of paying a particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Castle, who introduced the first Equal Pay Act in 1970. To my certain knowledge that had an immediate effect on women's pay, particularly among the poorer paid. We have also had the Equal Opportunities Commission. I myself was fortunate to be a member of the commission for some six years. We are lucky this afternoon in having as participants in the debate two distinguished noble Baronesses who chaired the commission my noble friend Lady Lockwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Platt.
Much of the legislation which has been undertaken since the first Equal Pay Act has been due to the activities of the EOC. The first Equal Pay Act had a

277
number of faults, not surprisingly since that was the first attempt at legislation in that field. It did not deal with areas of employment which are virtually women's ghettoes. We eventually got legislation requiring that equal pay should be paid for work of equal value as a result of a decision of the European Court. But the legislation itself is so difficult and complicated that it has not benefited as many women as we had hoped. We still have a situation in which women's earnings generally are substantially lower than those of men. I believe the difference is of the order of 30 per cent. However, cases have been won with EOC backing which have had the effect of changing our law. The EOC's campaign to encourage young women to take up training in careers and professions hitherto the province of men has had some success, although again not perhaps as much as we would have liked. In that connection I particularly mention the WISE campaign (Women into Science and Engineering) which took place while I was a member of the EOC and for which the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, worked extremely hard when she chaired the EOC.
So there has been progress. But I am afraid that that is only part of the story. The vast majority of women are still in low-paid work. The changes in social and sexual behaviour have not always been to the benefit of women, although no one would wish to return to the days when custom and social pressures forced women to remain in relationships that were destructive to them and, often, to their children. Nowadays one in three marriages is likely to end in divorce. There has been a substantial growth in the number of one-parent families. The vast majority of single-parent families are headed by women. Two-thirds of them exist on social benefit, and "exist" is the right word. Many single parents would like to work if work were available, but the child care facilities which are a feature of the social environment in many countries of Europe, are simply not available or, if they are, they are not affordable.
Essentially, poverty is about women and children, and there is a great deal more of it than there was. It is distressing to see how many of the young people now begging on the streets are young women, some with young children. That was something which was not seen 10 years ago. Although I applaud the recent decision of the Government to increase child benefit, I remind the House that we had to campaign very hard, particularly as regards noble Lords in this House, to get the Government to do so. There has also been the failure, on the ground that employment training places are available for all of them, to provide social security support for 16 to 18 year-olds. As we have seen, that is by no means the case.
It has already been mentioned that a large number of women work part-time. I was a member of the European Communities Committee that examined the European directives on part-time employment. We made the recommendation to the Government that the draft directives were a step in the right direction towards creating equal opportunities for women. We believed that the Government should support the proposal that women in part-time employment should have pro rata benefits. However, the Government's
278
view remains, and it has been restated by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, this afternoon, that regulation in the employment field produces less opportunities rather than more. No doubt that is why the Government want to see an end to the remaining wages councils on the ground that they have "outlived their usefulness". But these councils lay down minimum wage rates in a number of industries where unionisation is difficult and where the working population is a shifting one and about two-thirds of the employees are women. They are the most vulnerable people in the labour force. If they lose the minimal protection provided by wages councils, sweatshop rates and conditions will proliferate. Are the Government really advocating sweatshop conditions as a counter to unemployment? I do not believe that that is satisfactory.
There is no evidence that the introduction of a minimum wage, as advocated by my party, would result in further unemployment. Indeed it would immeasurably improve the lot of many women slaving away on low wages. I well remember, when equal pay legislation was first introduced, being told that I and others who had campaigned for it would live to regret it. They said that it would lead to unemployment, that employers would not want to employ women if they had to pay equal pay and that there would be fewer jobs for women. It has not worked out like that. Very few people would now dare to argue in that way even in private. It will not happen with minimum wage legislation either. In fact there may very well be public gains, since at present low wages are to some extent subsidised by the social security system. I for one have never seen why public funds should subsidise exploiting sweatshop employers.
There is a case for looking at the whole legislative framework again. As I have said, in the area of equal value claims in particular, the process is tortuous and complex. My own union has been trying to get justice for speech therapists under this legislation. It has taken us four years and we still have not resolved the issue. The case is now on its way to the European Court. Without backing from either a union or the EOC, individual women would not be able to contemplate such tortuous procedures. The EOC has made detailed recommendations for improvement in the law which are designed to eliminate delays and to try to ensure that, as far as possible, the whole process is very much less daunting for women.
I said earlier that progress has been made, but there is still a long way to go. In Parliament there are only 44 women MPs out of a total of 650. In the top 200 companies in Britain there are only 28 female directors. The overwhelming majority of those in charge of our destinies, whether in government, the board room, or local authorities, are still men. The fact remains that for women to succeed enormous commitment, stamina and often personal sacrifices are required. It is tough for women with young children. Society has an obligation to make it easier. The exceptional individual will normally make out, but there are hundreds of thousands of reasonably talented women who still find it difficult because of the social and family pressures upon them. Men, even

279
more than women, have benefited from the more liberal, social and sexual attitudes which we have had with us since the 1960s.
In the coming decade changes will have to be made. Child care and support services, including improved maternity and paternity leave, will need to be available. Status and pay in the employment areas now dominated by women must improve. In passing I should like to emphasise the claims of the caring professions whose skills will be needed even more as the elderly population increases.
Those are some of the tasks we must address in the future. Progress has been made, but a great deal still remains to be done.
3.43 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate on a very important subject to those of us on these Benches. I am afraid that we have only two speakers today, but normally we would have had more.
The noble Baroness gave a more encouraging picture of the situation than I recognised as regards women and their opportunities in this country. Perhaps I am being unfair to the noble Baroness, because undoubtedly there have been enormous strides forward in recent years. I remember when I was a young man in the late 1950s and early 1960s, having been brought up as a boy in the normal kind of monastic surroundings of "boys only" schools, taking for granted the fact that girls were not educated to go into the professions or into jobs. At the time I was ready to have girl friends I remember how shocked I was when girls wanted to impress, as sometimes they did. When a topic was brought up they would say, "Oh, I don't know anything about that. I am not as clever as you are". I do not think that happens today. Certainly if my own teenage daughters said that it would be very surprising—I would think that they were ill!
A great many strides forward have been made in the attitudes of women to their own potential. The problem arises in the meeting of that potential. The noble Baroness gave us an example when she said that 80 per cent. of people employed in the National Health Service were women. That may be so. But how many women in the National Health Service occupy senior positions, either on the administrative side or on the clinical side? The same applies in other areas.
Undoubtedly there is discrimination in this country. It is timely that today there are two rather extraordinary pieces of journalism in different newspapers. On the wilder shores of the feminist movement—curiously enough, in the Daily Telegraph —there is a report by the arts correspondent that a group of women in the theatre world are seeking to improve the lot of actresses who feel that it is time they were given the chance to play men's roles. In fact, these ladies are no longer saying that they would like to play St. Joan, they are saying that they would like to play Richard III. I understand their view. It is all there. It is just a question of whether people want to
280
pay to see a woman playing Hamlet or Macbeth. Indeed, my knowledge of the film industry tells me that it is purely a commercial judgment. If film moguls felt there was a profit to be made out of casting Arnold Schwarzenegger in the title role of the screen version of Hedda Gabler, they would undoubtedly do so. But I think that that is an unlikely event.
To be serious, the discrimination is very real and I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baronesses who chaired the Equal Opportunities Commission and for the incredible work that they and other noble Baronesses who took part have done.
We on these Benches are not keen on what one might describe as positive discrimination in improving the situation of women, although it has been used in one well-documented example which will give noble Lords an idea of what can be done if it is carefully used. In the province of Ontario, Canada, the police force issued a directive to improve the lot of women in the police force. Lip-service was paid to it, but nothing was done. Therefore, they used the means that they had at their disposal and promoted a lady police constable, who in her own time had obtained a good legal degree. They promoted her to the rank of inspector—a big jump. That caused such enormous upheaval among the male hierarchy of the Ontario police force that they ceased just paying lip-service because they were afraid for their own jobs. They thought that it was the start of some major threat. There was a marked improvement in the opportunities given to women thereafter.
That is an example of positive discrimination of which I would not approve in general, but it shows that occasionally one needs what the Government sometimes calls a kick start, to use current jargon.
The amount of wasted potential in this country is extraordinary. I believe that about 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. of first-class university degrees are awarded to women. Here again, one comes back to the National Health Service; the two facts just do not marry up.
It is a question of what can be done in the short to medium term to improve the position. It is on record that recently I asked a Question in this House about the provision of crèches. I specifically asked about the provision of a crèche for mothers working in the Palace of Westminster. I received a most polite and helpful Answer. I do not know whether I shall live to see the day when there is a crèche for mothers in the Palace of Westminster, but I am always an optimist.
The whole area of child care is one which has to be tackled very urgently. It is one area where women do not stand on a par with men. Most women in the normal way of things want to have children. Most women in the normal way of things want to achieve their potential and that often means working. Some choose to work and also to bring up children. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that one should not cast aspersions by saying that those who choose to look after their children are in any way the less for that. The choice should be given to them. I agree entirely. But it seems to me that at present there is little choice for many women. Those who want to develop their potential because they have the

281
education to do so, to go out to work and to have children, face a multitude of problems. It is not just the scarcity of maternity care or child care, whether it be nurseries or crèches. Compared with many other European countries, particularly France and Belgium, the amount of incentive by way of tax relief on child care and child minding schemes, and so on, are very few and far between in this country.
That does not mean to say that there is not a considerable amount of great work going on in the country, especially, as usual, in the voluntary sector. I single out the National Child Birth Trust which runs its parent-toddler groups. That is completely missing in France, I am told, although they have highly efficient and generous support for women who go out to work. For women who want to go out to work, though not for part-time work so much, there is an absence of this kind of care in the voluntary sector.
The Government's Opportunity 2000 was an interesting idea, but I wonder whether it falls into the category of the Ontario situation that it is just a piece of window dressing and a statement of intent. Does it fall into the category of the charters, of which we have had so many? I wonder whether Opportunity 2000 will be enough and whether it will need a kick start of the kind that I illustrated to your Lordships. Much needs to be done. This is a most interesting debate. I thank the noble Baroness again for initiating it and I look forward to hearing the Government's response.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I greatly welcome the fact that this debate has been initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and I congratulate her on her initiative.
I have some scant knowledge of the great efforts that the noble Baroness has made, and continues to make, to encourage girls, young women and those of us who are fast approaching what is called "The Third Age" to take their rightful place in the world of work. There is no doubt in my mind that there is now much wider acceptance of the fact that women do have a rightful place in the world of work and over the past decade great strides have been made in this area.
Some might maintain that the increase in the numbers of women in the labour force is the result of a natural evolutionary process begun by the breaking down of barriers at the beginning of this century when women first began attending universities in significant numbers, when women became active in politics and when feminism developed to encourage women to have faith in their own abilities and to work for equality of opportunity. There is almost certainly some credence in that, but I feel that the developments over the past decade have been so marked that there must be other factors at work.
Before looking at other possible factors, perhaps I may put some of the salient facts before the House. In 1979, women employees in the United Kingdom totalled 9,686,000 of an employee workforce of 23,173,000 some 42 per cent. In 1990, that total had risen to 10,806,000 an increase of 11.6 per cent. and now accounting for more than 47 per cent. of the total
282
employee workforce. I emphasise the words "employee workforce" advisedly as in the self-employed workforce the increases are even more marked, as has already been stated. The comparable figures are: in 1979, 348,000 women were self-employed in 1990, 773,000 women were self-employed, an increase of 122 per cent. Incidentally, I found it most interesting, when researching these figures at the weekend, to discover that total people in employment is at a higher level in 1990 than at any other time; namely, 26,077,000. We hear so much about unemployment that it was quite startling to discover that there are now more people in work than ever before.
But back to women and their increasing participation in the work-force. All of us are aware of the feelings of self-confidence and self-esteem which are generated by being in employment. That is particularly true of women, who undoubtedly used to be conditioned from birth to accept that they were somehow unable to aspire to places of responsibility in the world of work. This increase in the numbers of women in the work-force has been accompanied by a simultaneous increase in the numbers of women in more senior jobs in industry and commerce. The women in these more senior jobs are not only in those functions which are somehow regarded as the prerogative of women—"soft" and "caring" areas such as personnel—but in positions of general management where tough and important decisions have to be taken on an hourly or, in some cases, on a minute-by-minute basis.
How has this come about so dramatically during the past decade? I suggest that there are four principal reasons. The election of a government headed by a woman Prime Minister gave great encouragement to women. Certainly I said to myself, "If Mrs. Thatcher can rise to such a position of pre-eminence on merit, why can't I strive to rise to positions of seniority also?" I have to anticipate some scepticism in parts of the House about that statement, but I assure your Lordships that I honestly felt and said that on many occasions. The fact that we had a woman Prime Minister certainly spurred me on to seek advancement in my career.
Secondly, the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission, to which a great deal of tribute has already been paid, began to be taken more seriously by the males in the work-force. Again, my personal experience was that, instead of titters and somewhat pathetic jokes about the necessity to call manhole covers "personhole covers", a genuine dawning of the realisation that women were a greatly under-used asset took place. I am afraid that the acceptance of this fact was almost always on the grounds of self-interest namely, that employers needed all the talent they could get in an increasingly competitive world and not on the acknowledgment that women had had a raw deal up to then.
Thirdly, as more women joined the work-force the infrastructure adapted to accommodate the changed requirements of women. For example, shopping hours were extended. Most grocery supermarkets now stay open until about 8 p.m., which certainly was not the case before the end of the 1970s. Reference has already

283
been made to my fourth point; namely, child care facilities, flexi-time and so on. I shall therefore skip over that aspect.
All of these reasons and many more, many of which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, in her opening speech, have combined to create the climate wherein the working woman is encouraged to progress her career. I am not that naive to believe that there are still no areas of discrimination against women, though being a Member of your Lordships' House could lull one into a false sense of security in that regard. The House of Lords is the most fair, equal opportunity environment that I have yet experienced. I am sure that many noble Lords saw the letter in The Times last Saturday from the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who put paid to a complaint about inequality by listing the huge contribution made to the House during the Local Government Finance Bill by noble Baronesses on both sides of the House and similar facts concerning the Education (Schools) Bill. There undoubtedly remain areas of discrimination where women still cannot get the top jobs, and naturally one thinks of the Church in that connection. But the Motion draws attention to economic, social and cultural opportunities. I should like briefly to say something about the last mentioned; namely, the cultural opportunities for women.
I have come to know the arts world during the past two years since I took up my position at the Barbican Centre. It is a world which attracts a very high profile, though, I should state, not out of proportion to its contribution to the national wealth—and at some future stage I should like to see that contribution debated in this House. It follows, therefore, that women in senior positions in the arts attract a high profile but the reality is that, although there are a handful of women in very senior positions in the arts world, there is a genuine concern that women could do better and that they need encouragement.
The record is good. Out of 10 regional arts boards two are chaired by women, and of the 191 board members 76 are women that is, 40 per cent. In drama, in dance, in music and indeed in administration, there are many, many effective and efficient women. At the risk of turning my contribution to this debate into a catalogue of names, I shall desist from naming them, but if any Member of your Lordships' House would like to see the list I would be only too happy to show it.
However, the arts world is not sanguine about the strides made and to that effect the Arts Council of Great Britain, aware that proper statistics are not available, has initiated a project researching the position of women in the arts at all levels—as artists, facilitators, administrators and indeed consumers. When this research is completed, recommendations will be made leading to the creation of a national policy specific to women and the arts. The overall aims of this policy will be to ensure that a nondiscriminatory funding system is created which will encourage equal access to both employment and public funding for all groups previously disfranchised by society, including women.
284
The second objective to be achieved is that the contribution of women to the arts and the work of women artists is accorded great visibility. There are those of us who get the visibility at the moment and are in danger of becoming boringly far too high profile.
A further objective is that a commitment should be made, and effective steps taken, to ensure that diverse cultures and experiences, including those of women, are equitably represented and finally, that programming reflects concerns, issues and experiences of society and so greater access to the arts for peoples previously disfranchised by society, including women, is achieved.
The project seems to me well worth while and I congratulate the Arts Council of Great Britain on its initiative. Margaret Hyde, the deputy secretary general of the Arts Council of Great Britain, has specific responsibility for this issue and I look forward to the deliberations.
Perhaps I may say once more how delighted I am that this Motion is being debated in the House. Great strides have been made in the past decade or so and more and more opportunities are opening for women. Probably one of the most pleasing aspects of these developments is the fact that we are able to take note of them in this debate. We are determined to learn from the past and to encourage even more women to go for the top jobs in the future.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I too welcome the initiative of my noble friend Lady Seccombe this afternoon. Undoubtedly there has been a great increase in women's opportunities both over this century and, more recently, during the past decade. When I went to school, women teachers had to retire on marriage and women doctors were rare, and when I went up to Cambridge women were not even members of the University. All these things seem anachronistic and unbelievable today, itself a measure of progress.
Similarly I can see great progress during the past decade. I thank noble Lords for their kind reference to my chairing the Equal Opportunities Commission. When I started in 1983 it was a steep, uphill task to persuade schools, universities, employers and trade unions of the need for equal opportunities between men and women generally. Often the idea of giving women fair consideration for senior jobs, technical training and flexible working arrangements to allow them to combine responsible, happy family life with a career simply had not occurred to many people. The fact that Opportunity 2000 was launched last month with the backing of 61 major firms would not have been possible in those days. As the Prime Minister said at the launch:
"I want to see all women having the same opportunities as men. We want more women in top posts. Relatively few men think that combining career, marriage and children will involve choices or pose dilemmas. But for women these three simple human ambitions are still hard to combine.
This is the problem we must tackle today, and which Opportunity 2000 addresses. It is above all about changing attitudes … I am delighted that the employers participating in

285
Opportunity 2000 have … come to terms with these facts. I hope many more employers will follow suit … It is in their interests to do so".
That is certainly true. It is encouraging that that national lead has already been followed by another 30 firms, making, I understand, over 90 all told.
The CBI has published a document, entitled Discriminate on Ability, showing how many member firms are adding value to their female and ethnic minority workforce. The booklet is full of examples of firms which are taking positive action to give candidates, employees and mature women returners special training in non-traditional fields of work to develop their skills, confidence and leadership. They are laying down firmly that equal opportunities constitute a part of the firm's policy; that targets will he set to remove discriminatory barriers and that the results will be monitored to see that progress is being made. That means practical progress and not window dressing.
That of course, as they say, makes good commercial common sense as the numbers of young people leaving school reduce dramatically, and the principal source of better skills in the future decades lies in the existing workforce and among mature women returners. In its booklet, Performance and Potential, emphasising the importance of education and training, the Institute of Directors says:
"Women are especially important in raising the quality as well as the quantity of the workforce. Training them is a doubly good investment".
Both booklets are well worth study in encouraging other employers to follow that enlightened lead by two of our most important employers' organisations.
I know that the Equal Opportunities Commission is much encouraged by the fact that over 300 employers have joined its "Equality Exchange" on a voluntary basis so as to obtain practical advice, both from the EOC and from each other's experience, about how to promote equal opportunities in their own firms and to manage the change smoothly and efficiently. All those developments augur well for better opportunities for women in higher paid jobs and moving into management responsibilities in the future. They will also provide practical encouragement to smaller firms to follow the pioneers' lead.
Noble Lords will expect me to mention the WISE campaign—Women in Science and Engineering—as many speakers have today. I thank my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal for his kind support and also for his support when I was chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission and he was at the Home Office.
When I went up to Cambridge to read engineering in 1941 there were five women among 250 men. We later discovered that there had only ever been nine before us. We were not even a statistic. At the start of the WISE campaign set up by the EOC and the Engineering Council in 1984, 7 per cent. of first-year undergraduates in engineering were women. The EOC felt that literally half the talents of the nation were being neglected in this traditionally male field of work. The Engineering Council, post-Finniston, was determined to increase the proportion of women in our profession and therefore also improve its quality.
286
WISE still continues, and has been backed by schools, colleges, universities, industry and commerce, and the Government from the Prime Minister downwards. Margaret Thatcher launched the first WISE bus, and there are now six of them on the road financed by industry and commerce and government departments. We need more of them. They have proved to be an excellent initiative in showing girls in school that they can operate complex pneumatic and electronic equipment successfully, and also find it fun. There are careers videos and literature on board, proving to the girls that engineering firms both need and want their technical skills at all levels, from craft to technician to future incorporated or chartered engineer status. Firms are putting out excellent recruitment literature and also operating career-break bridging schemes, flexible working arrangements and a variety of schemes for helping with childcare so as to retain these commercially valuable women throughout their careers. They know that they cannot afford to lose them.
The percentage of first-year undergraduates in engineering who are women has now risen to 15 per cent.; that is, double the figure at the beginning of the WISE campaign. That is good progress. But, like everything else, we must not let up in our work of increasing that percentage. We shall see in future years women who are at present only young in the profession climbing the rungs of the engineering ladder in greater numbers. Meanwhile, women form about half of the graduate output of our universities and polytechnics and the proportion is similar in medicine and the law. In accountancy, women form between one-quarter and one-third of the workforce, depending on level, and about one-third of architects.
The doors are ajar, and indeed wide open in many cases. We need more girls and women to have courage, work hard and enter these professions and non-traditional fields of work at all levels. Teachers, careers officers and parents need to give them strong encouragement. There is a good lead from the top. It is possible that, on the stage, people will not pay to see women play Richard III; but they will pay to see them play Viola and Juliet. However, they pay every year to see women play Prince Charming.
During this decade the Government have put the second sex discrimination Act into force. That has meant that women are allowed to work in the mines and qualify as mining engineers. Small businesses, partnerships and private households are now included in the Act. The offshore oil industry now comes under that legislation. Equal pay for work of equal value legislation has been enacted and employers in both the public and the private sector must now set compulsory retirement ages for their employees irrespective of sex. Recently a consultative document was issued by the Government to obtain opinions on how to equalise the state pension age.
The code of practice of the Equal Opportunities Commission was approved by Parliament during my time at the EOC and has formed a powerful tool in the commission's hands. Such developments are very welcome in terms of equal opportunities. Certainly, opportunities are on the increase for women in many

287
fields. I welcome that wholeheartedly. I hope to see those opportunities expand substantially into the 21st century with the encouragement of employers, educationists, the Government and society as a whole.
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for introducing this most interesting debate. My party does not seem to be very interested in the subject, but I am sure that that will change during the run up to the election. Women represent 52 per cent. of the population. Knowing that I was to speak in the debate, I looked up a dictionary definition of men and women. I found the following:
"Man - a human being.
Woman - an adult female of the human race"
Therefore, we start one rung lower right from the word go. I often think that when the Almighty first created man he was just practising. But he did not think that he had done much of a job so he then created woman. We cannot help being perfect. There is no doubting the fact that women do make a great contribution in every way. However, we are still very undervalued.
As a teacher, I always like to think that human beings do not divide in the way that they are described as dividing. For example, there are just as many intellectually good women of a high standard as there are men. Similarly, there are just as many stupid women as there are stupid men. Therefore, it is not a matter of intellect.
Much was made of the physical differences between men and women when we were fighting for equal opportunities. Women are not supposed to be as physically strong as men, but we all know of weak men and strong women. If there is a war nobody bothers about the jobs that women do. They can drive the heaviest lorries and nobody questions whether they are physically strong enough for that, so that argument is out.
What about the emotions? I do not think that we are more emotional than males. I think that the poor males—or at least English males—are supposed to be straightfaced and all that kind of thing, but inside they are much more emotional than we are. When I served on the Bench much tougher sentences would be given out by three women than by three men. A lot of nonsense is talked about emotional differences.
I cannot do anything about the biological differences. Even if people have a sex change, I gather that there is a certain part of the anatomy that nothing can be done about. But that will come—let the scientists get on with it.
Therefore, there is really only one subtle difference —women produce the children. Other than that, people must be judged on their abilities, gifts and qualities. I believe that it was the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who said that we are wasting people appallingly by saying, "We don't want a woman" or "We don't want a man" or "You're too old" or "You're too young". Dozens of different reasons can be given as to why somebody does not want to use
288
another person's gifts or talents. I have always thought of people as people, and I have worked in the women's movement for a long time.
Because I know that the Government do not like anecdotal statements—if one has a really good example, they will say that it is anecdotal and shrug their shoulders—I had to get some figures. I did not get them from the Labour Party; I got them from a booklet that has been issued on women in business. I assume that they are good figures because that organisation has nothing to lose one way or another, whichever party forms the government. The figures show that women hold only 15.8 per cent. of the executive posts on public bodies. Why? They hold only 18 per cent. of the posts on advisory bodies. Why? Does that look as though we are being given every opportunity? They hold 20 per cent. of such posts on tribunals and 28 per cent. of the posts on National Health Service advisory boards and authorities. That is not equality, whichever way one looks at it, and that is not giving people due consideration for the qualities that they can offer.
The figures for departmental appointments are not very good either. It is interesting that the Home Office is top, with 36 per cent. of its top appointees being women. The figure for the Scottish Office is 31 per cent.—good luck to the Scots. The figure for the Department of Health and Social Security is 27 per cent. and it is important to note that that for the Revenue is 7 per cent. What is the myth that the female does not understand money? We really will have arrived when we have a woman Chancellor of the Exchequer. We will show them how to balance the books, how to save and what to spend. That has been needed for a long time. Only 7 per cent. of the top posts at the Department of Energy are held by women. The figure is only 4 per cent. for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. But who, even now, prepares most meals and buys the food? That, however, does not appear an important enough consideration.
Do your Lordships know that when it comes to the number of women Members of Parliament, this country has the lowest number in Europe? That is nice, is it not? I have never thought of the French as being very advanced, but they are ahead of us, as are the Germans and the Danes. We are at the bottom of the list, with only 15 per cent. of our MPs being women. That is not for want of trying. I remember how many places my daughter had to go to before she was finally selected as a Member of Parliament—and she is a first-rate MP. She does not favour either one sex or the other in any way—she works for people. That is what women are like. I suppose that the less said about Cabinet Ministers, the better. Had Maggie, when Prime Minister, been a man, the chaps would not have treated her as badly as they did. They will deny this—but men still do to women what they would not do to men. I am not talking about sexual acts, but simply about the way they sometimes behave towards women who work with them.
There are still not enough women employed at the top levels. Only 6 per cent. of women earn over £15,000. Just think about that. There are 3 million

289
women who earn less than £3 an hour. I took the trouble to ask what hospital cleaners were getting. It is £1.50 an hour. Do we or do we not have slaves? That is slave labour—and the sooner we have a minimum wage, the better.
The booklet states that women managers are younger than their male counterparts, paid less, more highly educated and occupy lower levels of management. We are back to square one. I was told that a woman had to be twice as good as a man if she wanted to achieve anything in a man's world. I endorse what one noble Baroness has already said—your Lordships' House is the most egalitarian place in which I have ever been but, of course, it is all right when one is older. Men then accept a woman almost as another object—or rather, as an individual.
What women have achieved is due to a small number of dedicated women who have pressed the point. Let us never forget that. I am the daughter of a suffragette. My mother was a wonderful woman who was well ahead of her time. She was the first woman mayor. I had the privilege of being the first woman to sit on the Government Bench in this House. Nothing has been gained by sitting back. However, I must advise any government that if the 52 per cent. of our population organised collectively, the monstrous regiment of women could be very formidable. But we do not organise—we get on with what we are supposed to be doing.
I happened to go through the daily papers today—and this is the sort of thing that is so ridiculous. All the items towards the beginning of the papers that related to women depicted beautiful girls, who were very unclad and in strange positions which, I should have thought, one could not maintain for long. However, when one gets to the back pages and to the items about money, all the pictures are of men—but not very successful men, given that they are the chairmen of NatWest, Barclays and one or two other banks. Why are only women depicted like that? Why not have the chairman of NatWest depicted in, I was going to say, a bikini? There is still the strange idea that that is the way to depict women.
As one agony aunt, whom I shall not name, has said, "A woman has to be bright and cheerful, alert and interesting, attractive enough to make other men look at her, but not too attractive that she causes complications. She must be successful, but not in his field." That is very important. Finally, "A woman must be mysterious, yet easy to understand. In the sex war, the balance is still in the man's favour".
4.17 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I hesitated to enter this debate and might have hesitated for even longer if I had known that I should have to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. Perhaps I may declare an interest as the chairman of NatWest.
Having said that, and in welcoming the positive tones in which my noble friend Baroness Seccombe opened the debate, perhaps I may refer to another positive development during the past decade. As your Lordships know, it has been a decade in which, on the basis of the framework of opportunities that are open
290
to people in our economy, greater emphasis has been placed on the development of small businesses. Those businesses now contribute 25 per cent. of our national output and provide 35 per cent. of private sector employment. I am glad to say that 500,000 new small businesses opened even during the difficult recessionary year of 1991. The essential point of this tale is that 35 per cent. of those businesses are run by women.
While welcoming all the positive things that have been said, I should like to focus on the opportunities that are available for women at work, which I see as the central area in which further progress can be made. Perhaps I may refer, first, to the Bar, which was my profession for many years. Between 1981 and 1991, the percentage of women in practice grew from 10 per cent. to 18 per cent. That is a trend that clearly should continue. Currently, 42 per cent. of the students of the Council of Legal Education are women. Encouragingly, women chair or are vice-chairs of nine of the 16 committees of the Bar Council. That progress should, in time, be reflected, as it needs to be, by greater numbers of women in the senior ranks of the profession and within the judiciary.
I shall move on to concentrate mainly on banking where, for the past two years, I have been keenly involved in issues affecting career development for women. The importance of maximising that development arises at several levels. First, it is quite simply a matter of basic fairness. Secondly, there is an extremely powerful economic impetus. Banking is now a highly competitive environment. We are all crucially dependent upon the quality of service that we give, which is as it ought to be. That in turn depends upon the skills of our work-force. We need to draw on the talents of the whole potentially available work-force, or otherwise we shall suffer. I believe that is now more widely recognised in business and industry. It is a hard-headed, practical, driving force which reinforces the general wish to give people equal opportunities. Quite simply, we have to make the most of our human resources.
My own employer, NatWest, was among the first of the large companies to make a commitment to equal opportunities. More recently, we have sought to give that increased impetus, and to reinforce and deepen that commitment. I am very glad that Opportunity 2000 has been mentioned. NatWest was one of the founder members of its target team. Opportunity 2000 sensibly and correctly focuses on the business reasons for maximising the use of women's talents. It has already done much to highlight the need to set pragmatic, yet stretching, targets for increasing the number of women in management positions throughout business. We are grateful to the Prime Minister for his support for that initiative given so publicly last autumn.
We as a bank have responded by publicly setting our own targets. We have committed ourselves to a goal of ensuring that one third of management consists of women by the year 2000. That target is not arbitrary, nor is it pious aspiration. It represents what we believe we should, and can, achieve if we follow best practices to encourage women in their banking careers. Why could we not go even faster? Sadly we

291
could not do so at present without positive discrimination. We do not, however, believe in that form of discrimination, nor do our women employees want it. Early on I held a working session with women drawn from right across the bank. They emphasised of their own initiative that they would be disadvantaged in the end if they had positive discrimination. What they wanted was equal opportunity on merit. We agree with that, but we think it important that, in order to ensure there is fair opportunity, we should have an active process for identifying women to be shortlisted for the management posts which give them the chance to progress. But it is not enough for us to set a target: the commitment to equal opportunities must run deep through the veins of the organisation, from the top right down through our management team.
How do we set about achieving that? We have a twice-yearly report to main board on progress, which provides not only support from the top but a discipline to accountability from management. We also have a clear recognition from those in key positions, such as our regional executive directors, that we need to give full encouragement.
There are certain factors which we see as being of key importance if we are to succeed in our task. Perhaps I may first mention the part to be played by example, or, as it is called in the jargon, "role models". There is no doubt that it is important to have role models who come up through the organisation into management. They provide visible encouragement to other women and help raise their aspirations. They also accustom the organisation to the sight of women in key senior line positions. We recognise the importance of identifying role models, and publicising their success continually as an encouragement to others. We need also, as we do, to give encouragement to women to remain in their jobs. Career breaks, job sharing, flexible hours, as well as distance learning programmes, all form part of our processes and our training. I should add that we offer those opportunities equally to men and women.
Encouraging best practice is, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said, of ever-increasing importance in this decade. On current projections, the national work-force will grow by 900,000 by the end of the decade. It is estimated that of that number 750,000 will be women. It is therefore vital to have as few barriers as possible which might prevent women from returning to work.
In the time remaining I shall single out one barrier: the present position with regard to child care. We recently conducted a survey within our own regions. The response came clearly that the provision of child care was an important issue as an aspect of economic development. All who responded were satisfied that the provision of child care would be encouraged by a more favourable tax framework. Child care was shown by current research done by Dr. Barnardo's to apply to only 1 per cent. of school children in this country. Out-of-school child care facilities need improving. We appreciate the recognition that the Government gave to child care in the 1990 Budget by
292
creating an employee tax exemption for workplace nurseries, but we do not believe that it should be limited to care in the workplace. In many cases, they are impractical as a child care option. The survey revealed that some inner city and city centre locations were unsuitable, and were not a preferred option for employees. In the case of some individual units, they were also too costly to provide.
In that regard we are behind other countries in the European Community. It is a competitive as well as a social issue. There is clearly a cost in expanding child care relief, but we believe that much of it can be offset by the additional revenue which would be generated if more women were to return to work. We regard that issue as so important that we have made a Budget submission to the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggesting that there is now a unique and timely opportunity to put in place the right tax framework to support the needs of the country's employers and working parents. I would only add that, although we naturally cannot expect that factor to affect the purity of the Budget judgment, our survey suggests that such an extension would have wide electoral support. I hope that we shall see a positive development on 10th March.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lady Seccombe for her interesting speech. We all learned a great deal from it. I also thank my noble friend Lord Alexander. I learnt from him about all the workings of his bank and the strides that he is making.
My contribution will be different from that of other noble Lords. I may be taking the wrong line, but at least I shall be talking about women. I shall talk about widows. For the past 20 years I have been the national president of the National Association of Widows. There are 3 million widows in this country, and 500 women lose their husbands every day. That means that there are many women who may not have a great deal to do and who need a great deal of encouragement. They are women of all kinds, ages and backgrounds. They have all done different things during their careers. They all share one thing: they have all lost the man whom they loved and that brings them together.
Those women can be used—I mean in the nicest way—to help our country. They have all been through the traumatic experience of losing their husbands and so they have a unique understanding—I say that advisedly—of other people's problems. Of all the women throughout the country whom I know, I am aware that they know more about other people's problems than any other sector of our population.
I hope that women can be used in the future as conciliators. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has let it be known that we shall need many conciliators to help young and sometimes older people through the traumatic division of their family life. They may have to go to court for a divorce they may need help in avoiding going to court for a divorce they may just need a shoulder to cry on. Those people have trouble with their marriages. I

293
suggest that, because of the experience of these women of all ages, they should be asked to help the conciliation services. When I say "asked", I mean it. Few women will think that they are good enough to become conciliators for anyone else. Therefore, I suggest that employers should go out and find women who are understanding enough to know about other people's problems.
The 3 million widows are of all ages. Unfortunately, the job market has the impression that a widow must be over 70 or 80. People do not realise that a widow can be as young as on her marriage: in other words, she could be 18, 19, 20 or older. Unfortunately, there are a great number of such widows and they need encouragement and help. I realise that most noble Lords are talking about women in the job market who have to earn a living. Most of the women whom I come across in the National Association of Widows are in that group. They go out to work, when an employer will give them a job. If they have children it is important that the employer should give them an opportunity to look after those children.
Another job which I believe is important for those who have had the experience of losing their husbands is being a grandmother. I expect that most people think that being a grandmother is an automatic part of family life. I disagree. Grandmothers play an important part in our social sphere in this country. We should realise that one family in four splits up, often with deeply unhappy children. To whom do the children turn? They turn to their grandmother. In many cases it is the grandmother who has to bring up deeply disturbed and unhappy children. If the grandmothers have the right understanding of what the children are going through, they can bring them up for the parents who should have done it in the first place. Grandmothers have a great part to play in the social structure of our country. I urge all those in employment, and those who employ people, to seek women who are widows and who have the understanding and courage to try to meet the world without their husbands. Employers should give them extra encouragement in all that they do.
I know that I am way off beam because everyone is talking about people who have jobs. Finally, I would like to quote George Bernard Shaw who said:
"I cannot bear men and women".
I do not agree. I like them both.
4.34 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble friend Lady Seccombe for initiating this important debate. As she has already mentioned, in the National Health Service, of the 1 million employees, three-quarters are women and they are making an increasingly important contribution.
The recent reforms provide more opportunities for women to flourish. There are more nurses today than ever before and more doctors, a greater proportion of whom are women; 50 per cent. of medical students are now women.
Some years ago a graduate of Guy's Hospital was appointed as one of the deans of St. Bartholomew's
294
Hospital and given the job of selecting the medical students. He was so overwhelmed by the brilliance, ability and charm of the women candidates that the intake of women rose to 30 per cent. This led to the rumour that there had been a conspiracy on the part of Guy's to sabotage Bart's chances of winning the rugger championship.
The entry of women into medicine has certainly raised the tone of the medical profession. They work much harder, they are gentler, they listen more readily, and many patients, especially women, prefer them. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has already said, women do not want positive discrimination and they can do without negative discrimination. What they do want is better child-care facilities which will make it easier for them to pursue their careers.
Things have generally improved in the profession in its attitude to women, but there are still some aberrant dinosaurs who tend to treat women doctors in a rather patronising way. However, these women seem well able to defend themselves. During an interview for a surgical appointment in a hospital up north, a rather patronising surgeon asked one of the women candidates what her hobbies were. "Climbing", she replied. "Oh, very good, my dear, we have some very high mountains here in Scotland. How far have you managed to climb so far, lassie?". "Well, sir," she replied, "so far only 29,000 feet up Everest".
When I began my career in hospital in the 1950s, the key people were undoubtedly the matron and the ward sisters. By their example and teaching, they influenced countless nurses and doctors. The ward where I worked as a house surgeon was run by a superb sister, Angela Falwasser, who always knew everything about the patients. She knew what was wrong with them long before the doctors did. Her ward was a haven of peace, kindness, order and efficiency.
However, the nursing staff had a great deal to put up with in those days, which were not quite as rosy as some politicians would have us believe. I shall never forget going into her ward one day and being amazed to find this very distinguished ward sister up a ladder cleaning the walls of her ward because the cleaners would not clean above four feet. This produced a tidemark all round the ward, so the sister used to clean the rest of the walls herself.
Over the past 25 years, ward sisters have lost far too much of their authority and the reforms are beginning to help to restore their former power and glory, giving them a major say in the running of their hospitals. After all, the sisters are the backbone of the hospital service and the return of the matron is providing a necessary support at ward level, with her regular visits round the hospital which boost morale all round. These people have great potential and we must ensure that it is fully realised.
I have had the opportunity of seeing ward sisters taking over managerial roles and also continuing to manage the nursing work-force. Their natural common sense fits them well for this work and also for managing their budget. They are extremely good at it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said, they are

295
very talented at handling the finances. They take much more trouble over interviewing people, and hence they employ only the best people.
It will come as no surprise to your Lordships to know that this kind of nurse manager has her office not in some remote building but right next door to the wards, and the door is always open. They know that the management of hospitals is about managing people and does not lie in the endless shuffling of verbose and badly written memoranda.
Another advantage of women managers in the NHS is that they tend to be less secretive and exclusive than men, and paranoia does not seem to be a problem with them. They seem far less concerned with ego trips and much more able to work together in teams. Their main objective seems to be to get the job done.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, questioned how many senior executives there are in the health service. He will be pleased to know that 36 per cent. of the executives on the management board of the NHS Guy's Trust are women, including a matron for the first time in 25 years.
The Government have gone a long way to provide the framework within which increasing fairness and equality of opportunity for women can flourish, but there is still room for improving the attitude of the more backward-looking men, with their particular type of restrictive practices.
This way of thinking is not entirely new. In conclusion perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the words of Robert Burns 200 years ago which may be appropriate:
"While Europe's eye is fix'd on mighty things,
The fate of empires and the fall of kings …
Amid this mighty fuss just let me mention,
The Rights of Woman merit some attention".
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as a fellow Scot, I am extremely glad to follow my noble friend's contribution. We have heard from several noble Lords of their direct experience of what women are doing these days in different areas of our national life. I want to make the point that of all the changes in economic understanding that have come about in this country during the past 12 years—and they are many—probably the most significant has been the true realisation that the British economy cannot survive without the maximum contribution of women.
It is all too easy to forget the prevailing attitudes even as recently as 1979 and the early 1980s. At that time people made the assumption that there was a set, limited number of jobs in the economy, that the number of jobs was shrinking because technology was taking over, and that unemployment would inevitably go on rising forever. There was a widespread view that one of the solutions had to be that married women should pull out of paid work altogether, leaving what jobs there were to breadwinning men and to single men and women who would otherwise be unemployed.
Your Lordships may remember the disbelief that greeted my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham when, as chairman of the Manpower Services
296
Commission and subsequently as Secretary of State for Employment, he began to suggest a contrary view. My noble friend Lord Young stood the prevailing agreement on its head. He suggested that what was needed was not fewer people seeking a diminishing number of jobs and certainly not fewer married women seeking work, but that employers should be able to respond to new economic needs by creating different kinds of jobs with different and more varied work patterns, and that it should be made more attractive for people to take those jobs that self-employment should be made easier and that the route to that goal would be the reduction in the rigidity of the labour market to which there has already been reference. His view was that was the way to create more jobs and to bring more people's talent into the system, thus benefiting the economy.
In the face of very fierce opposition during the 1980s, the Conservative Government put policies in place one by one. A framework for this flexibility was created, and what my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham had previously predicted began to happen: old jobs gave way to new ones many new jobs appeared, and the alacrity with which women responded to the new opportunities was remarkable. The current recession may have altered some of the figures temporarily, but there is a trend which is unstoppable.
We have already heard how between 1979 and 1989 1.6 million additional women joined the UK workforce. Those were not people coming into manual jobs 424,000 of those jobs were professional and related work in education, welfare and the health care of which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has spoken; 426,000 were clerical and related jobs and the number of managerial jobs undertaken by women nearly doubled. It is true that many of those jobs were part-time and many were not at as high a level as the women concerned would have liked, but women undertaking full-time careers take time to make their way up the promotion ladder. When their children are young some women prefer not to climb the ladder too fast. Many married women genuinely prefer part-time work, and many employers find that two part-timers achieve more in a day than one full-timer.
Those preferences are reflected in the 1988 figures, which are the latest ones I can find. Of women with children under five, 31 per cent. work for fewer than 15 hours a week, whereas 70 per cent. of women without dependent children work over 30 hours a week. It is interesting also that in 1990, of all the two-parent households with children both parents worked full time in only 14 per cent. of families in 31 per cent., of families the man worked full-time and the woman part-time and in 27 per cent. of families only the husband worked. That is an interesting pattern.
It is likewise interesting that in the United Kingdom women involved in paid work are on average mostly in their forties, while in Germany they are in their early twenties. Undoubtedly this is related to the different school hours. In Germany children go to school at 8 o'clock in the morning and return at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and the parent is expected to help with copious homework in the afternoon, so

297
married women find employment very much more difficult. In the United Kingdom school is from 9 o'clock in the morning until 4 o'clock in the afternoon, so a job is not so awkward to fit in. So school patterns affect the situation.
Those of us who comprise the female heart of our population still have a long way to go in realising our full potential and contributing to the economy of the country, but we have made a lot of progress since 1979, largely due to the flexible labour market that has been created during this decade. It is essential that that flexibility continues.
I remember going to the Scottish Trades Union Congress a number of years ago and noticing the almost total lack of women in the hall. I understand why the Labour Party has found it necessary to make special rules to force people to vote women into positions of responsibility. I am not sure why creating a Minister for Women would help. It may, but it seems to me to be merely a frill. What is really important is that the government of the day should, without fail, make sure that the labour market is flexible and that jobs exist for women. If the opportunities are there, women will take them. That must be the main theme for the coming year.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I had to attend a meeting of one of your Lordships' advisory panels just now so I missed several speeches, which I regret. I welcome the fact that a large number of my noble friends are present on these Benches. I am surprised, however, that the Back-Benches of the parties opposite are deserted except for one noble Lord.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour very properly said that our economy cannot survive without the contribution of women. I remind your Lordships that we could not have won either of the world wars without their work on the land, in munition factories and in hospitals and their presence in all three of the Armed Forces of the Crown. I have to declare an interest in the debate in that I have no son but I have two daughters who are making good careers and who are also good mothers.
There are some things which women do better than men and some which men do better than women. But there is a vast range of activity, much of which has been mentioned, in which men and women can, and should, and do, compete on equal terms. They include all matters in which only brains, personality and integrity are required. I give as an example the legal profession.
When I was called to the Bar, alas nearly 60 years ago, there were only 12 women in practice, including one King's Counsel. Now, I am happy to tell your Lordships, there are over 1,200 women in practice, including 34 Queen's Counsel. Even more significant is the increasing proportion of women compared with men being called to the Bar. Twenty years ago only 20 per cent. of those called were women. Ten years ago the proportion had risen to 27 per cent. Last year, 42 per cent. of those called to the Bar were women.
As the proportion of women in practice increases, so, over the years, will the proportion of women
298
Queen's Counsel and the number of women judges. It takes 15 to 20 years in practice to become a judge. It takes at least 10 years to become a Queen's Counsel. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are not yet many women judges. However, I am sure that there will be more in future given that such a development is encouraged by the Bar Council and forms part of the policy of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
It is interesting to note that there has always been a higher proportion of women among solicitors than at the Bar. There are now 50,000 women practising solicitors, 24 per cent. of the total. In other professions progress is also encouraging. For example, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants now has 2,500 women members compared with only 300 10 years ago. There is progress for you! I would not dare to embellish or add to the admirable speech made by my noble friend Lord McColl, but as the son of a doctor I know that throughout this century there has been an ever-increasing number of women in practice in the medical profession.
My noble friend Lady Seccombe, in her excellent opening speech, said that there were ever-increasing opportunities for women. That is right. However, we must be realistic. We do no service to the women of this country if we are not. Women's opportunities are inevitably limited, as are their opportunities for promotion, by their having to bear children and look after those children in their early years. Therefore, it would be unrealistic for women always to keep pace with men in every occupation all the time. But they can, they do, and they will succeed when they have the opportunity.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lady Seccombe for initiating the debate with her usual charm and grateful also to the noble and truly, if not technically, gallant male noble Lords who have supported her.
I made my first point when I said, "My Lords". In this House we are all equal. We are all Peers and as men and women—though fortunately very different in certain respects—are all human beings. That is a perfect example of how things should be run in the best possible of worlds, although there are certain anomalies. Although all of your Lordships are unfailingly polite and courteous, I have noticed that the male Members of this House are even more polite and courteous, if that were possible, to those Peers who are also women. We all find that totally delightful.
Men in this House are not always so advantaged. My spouse, for example, has no courtesy title, although he can, of course, like a peeress, ballot for a place at the State Opening of Parliament. He does not, however, wear an evening dress and tiara which, to be fair, I do not think he minds.
Everywhere, new opportunities for women are opening up. When my aunt first went to sea as a tenth engineer in 1922 she was the only woman engineer in the Merchant Navy. When she retired as a chief engineer in 1963 many more women had adopted a

299
sea-going career. Last Friday, in Dundee I was aboard a Belgian ship, the "Zinnia", which was leading a NATO flotilla. The captain of a Dutch ship told me that eight of his 45 crew were women, two of them officers. It was, he said, a happy ship and all of the crew worked very well together.
Over the past 10 years the number of women working full or part time has increased by almost a fifth. With more child care facilities and greater flexibility of hours and working conditions, more women are finding it possible to continue with a career outside as well as inside the home. That is true in higher education. The number of women studying medicine, dentistry and health at university has risen from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. Indeed, nearly half the students at university today are women. As my noble friend said, 7,000 more women than men joined university courses last year. We have had a woman Prime Minister. The new head of MI5, Stella Rimington, who started work today, is a woman.
Man has traditionally been the breadwinner, woman the bread maker. "Lady" means loaf maker. I believe that one of the most fulfilling and exciting careers for any woman is that of wife and mother, though that does not now exclude having another career as well. Although bakers are not likely to go out of business, occasionally the smell of warm yeast in the kitchen in the middle of the night shows that ladies are still exercising their traditional skills.
Because one is a woman one does not wish to be promoted as a special category, as something different from the rest of humanity. We do not need or want a special Ministry for Women as suggested in the Labour manifesto, as if woman was some rare and inhuman beast. We are all human beings; we are all part of humanity. Without women, mankind would cease to exist. As women we want only to compete on an equal footing—not so much jobs for the boys as jobs for all. We want to be sure that the best person for the job is the one who gets it. It could well be a man it could also be a woman. But it must be the best.
5 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. I have come from 17 years as a journalist, where one did not think in terms of discrimination between men and women. I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, spoke, and that my noble friend Lady Denton is to wind up the debate. I think I am right in saying that among those of us who entered the House at the same time, on John Major's first list of working Peers, there are more women than men. That is of some significance.
This country has a tradition of outstanding women. It may partly be because we base ourselves, consciously or unconsciously, on our Greek heritage. At one time in Greece the goddess Athena ruled supreme. At least three of our greatest monarchs have been women. History will say that one of our greatest Prime Ministers was a woman.
We all have our heroes. Mine is a woman. I happen to believe that three of the qualities which I most
300
admire—courage, determination and idealism—are found more often in women than in men. My "hero" in life has for long been Charlotte Corday. We will be celebrating the bicentenary of her death next year. Noble Lords will remember that she murdered—or assassinated, it depends upon one's point of view—the odious Marat, who was busy guillotining dissidents. She suffered a martyr's death about five days later.
I welcome what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and my noble friend Lady Strange. One must not think of women as such, one must think of people or human beings. That can be the only sensible approach. I grant that it is not the approach of everybody but it suggests to me that positive discrimination is the wrong approach. To me the ultimate in petty sexism is the Women's Page in the Guardian. I looked at it today. The heroine today is a militant lesbian. Is that the kind of stereotyping in which any Members of this House believe? I believe that positive discrimination is patronising, or worse.
Equally, I find that the snide attitude taken by some feminists toward men is as unattractive as the chauvinist attitude which, regrettably, some men still have toward women. My experience is that on the whole if men make silly judgments, women quickly put them in their place. Noble Lords will remember that a few years ago there was a rapist at large in Cambridge. It was suggested by some men that women in Cambridge should be subjected to a curfew at nine o'clock at night until he was caught. It was soon pointed out that it might be more appropriate for men to be subjected to a curfew.
There is much pressure on women to work shortly after having children. That pressure comes from two sides. It is partly external—economic pressure—and partly internal: the motivation and ambition that women understandably have to return to work. I cannot make a judgment on the second area. With regard to the external pressure, I should like to suggest increasing child benefit. I was very glad that the Conservative Party increased child benefit, although belatedly, in the last Budget. I should like to see it increased further. I am not one for producing extra expenditure proposals, so I would fund it by making child benefit taxable and use the tax clawed back to increase it. I do not believe that it is moral to give money to people who do not need it at the expense of people who do need it. That would be my suggestion.
Certainly I agree with my noble friend Lord Alexander that more women are needed in the boardroom. That is an easy matter to put right. Anyone who has sat on the board of a company will know how very sensitive are directors of companies. I suggest that people—I do not say necessarily that they should be women—should go along to annual general meetings of companies where there is no member of the main board who is a woman. They should ask, "Why not?" One only has to say that three or four times or perhaps for a couple of years. One would find that the board of that company would ask themselves, "What are we going to do about this situation?" and they will do something about it.
It is a pity that there are no Bishops taking part in this debate. I should have liked to see one on each side

301
of the controversy. There are certain things about religion which one can never understand. I cannot begin to understand, try as I may, why we should not have ordained women priests into the Church of England, of which I try to be a member. I am sorry that we have not heard their opposing points of view.
Finally, I should like to say a word on Labour's proposal for a Ministry for women. It is not a sensible idea because that is not how government works. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is not in his place. He would know that it is not the way in which Whitehall operates. The Minister either will not be in the Cabinet, in which case she will have no real power, or she will be in the Cabinet and there will be a quick Pavlovian reaction when she says something —the Prime Minister will look at his watch. Basically, her comment will not be seen as relevant.
I believe that the approach taken by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is much better; namely, that every Minister should have a responsibility in these matters. I suspect that Mr. Kinnock himself does not believe in the Ministry for women. I suspect that his wife does not do so either. However, I recognise that there are certain pressures to which everyone in politics is subjected, and that is a pressure to which he has had to yield. I end by cautioning Labour against that particularly silly idea.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, I have generously been given one-and-a-half minutes in which to speak. The most important decision that people have to make is about marriage. When a man marries, he looks at a woman, her appearance and her attraction, all of which are possibly evolving or diminishing qualities. In other words, a man shops for the package and wrapping. A woman does not marry a man for his looks—this House is evidence of that. She marries a man for what he is, not what he looks like. She asks herself whether he will be a good provider and whether he will make a good father for her children.
With regard to business training, the best possible business training comes from managing a household on a fixed income. Most women spend their own money. Most men, whether in employment or otherwise, spend either the employer's, the company's or the Government's money. They have vision, but very often their feet are not on the ground. The result is obvious.
Women have a reputation for being difficult and that is because they have vocations, not jobs. In my experience women are motivated to satisfy the requirements of the job. Men are concerned with how to satisfy the boss and worry about their future promotion. If one wants results, give it to a woman. If one wants explanations of why what happened was not his fault, give it to a man.
In my last half minute I should like to cite the Almighty. He had to make the choice of to whom to entrust the bearing of children. He must have practised positive discrimination. I rest my case.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, following what the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, said, I protest about the generalisations about women and men. Women are as diverse as men. We do not like being lumped together as though we are all duplicates, one of another.
That said, I should like to take up the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, in a most interesting and constructive speech from a more economic view. I take a rather gloomy view about the future of this country at present with the global economy that we face. We simply cannot afford to waste the ability of a single person in this country. There is no doubt that women's ability has been woefully wasted over decades. I do not blame anyone for that. It has been wasted because in the past women have not taken the subjects in schools or continued with studies which have enabled them to enter the more demanding occupations. That applies also to the training that they have received in the past. The urgency is to find the greatest possible number of ways of recovering what we have lost by failing to make use of the woman-power that we have in this country, because we shall need every bit of it.
The situation as regards equal opportunity has changed very much over the past 20 years, not least due to the efforts of two noble Baronesses in your Lordships' House. It is a generalisation to say that today the difference in equal opportunity between a woman with no children and a man is less than between a woman with no children and a woman with children. The heart of the problem is less a matter of sex than of the responsibilities of childbearing. Therefore we need to consider every possible way in which we can ease the difficulties of women who try to combine home duties with work duties, and to consider in detail how we can make very much better use of the talent which undoubtedly is there.
I echo the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, in saying that after all it is not as though while looking after children at home—I can speak from total ignorance of the experience—one does not develop valuable qualities. As someone remarked, if one has run a children's party for seven year-olds with no damage to property or person one must be quite a competent manager. There are surely skills acquired which could be applied elsewhere.
We turn immediately to child care. Again I wish to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said in imploring the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend the tax concessions for child care. I know that it is too late; the Budget is already written. Employer child care can affect only a relatively small proportion of the children concerned. Often an employer is too small a body to provide adequate child care. Do not let us forget that good child care will always be expensive. Often the place of employment is too far away for such child care to be convenient for the mother, but she has to have the child looked after while she is at work.
Child care is not just a matter of crèches and looking after the under-fives. I have been told many times that the biggest problem is school holidays. What does one do with a bouncing 11 year-old who

303
wakes up in the morning with nothing to do and has the whole day in which to do it—often very destructively? We should be considering the provision during school holidays of colonies de vacances, which they have in France. After all, the period of time that a child is at school is very much longer than the period of time before the child goes to school. We should shift the emphasis on child care to some extent to that area.
There is, too, the issue of effectively returning to employment. The NatWest Bank is a leader in the retainer schemes which allow women up to five years off with a guarantee of a return at the same level of employment. One cannot guarantee the same job after that period of time. There is the requirement to come back for two weeks in the year so that the women stay in the atmosphere of employment and do not feel that they have been completely left behind by the developments which go on in what were their jobs. That is extremely valuable. More encouragement ought to be given for more employers to run such retainer schemes.
Financial provision for retraining or new training is extremely important. It is not true to say that the provision made by the Government for retraining is as good for women as it is for men. So much of it has been dependent upon being technically unemployed. Women who have been housewives do not rank as technically unemployed. I know that the Government made some provision for training for women in that category. However, it still leaves a large number who need retraining but who do not qualify for Government grants. It is important that that should be altered.
Perhaps I may put in a special plea for refresher courses for professional women. The loss of their skills and contribution is very serious indeed. Public money on a small scale has been put into some extremely valuable nine-week individually developed courses. They started in Hatfield Polytechnic and they now extend to a considerable number of other polytechnics. Such courses "recondition" women who have had professional training and experience but who are out of date because they have been at home. Those courses can be expensive for the period of time involved, but it is a short period and Government money invested in such courses can be quickly recouped if those women obtain good employment, as a great many do, and start paying tax when they earn. To consider such courses in detail is extremely important.
I urge that the universities in their summer vacations—which are still pretty long—should be encouraged to develop retraining programmes for women. Many have residential facilities. They could make it very easy for women who wish to retrain intensively by attending courses at universities.
Finally, the emphasis should shift. One does not disregard the problems of sex discrimination, but sex discrimination is today entwined with age discrimination. Much of the difficulty for women returning to work—apart from the qualification issues about which we have spoken—is that when they wish to return to work they are at an age at which both men
304
and women are regarded as beyond the pale. One sees that in particular in your Lordships' House. Almost all the noble Baronesses in this House—I can see two or three exceptions, of which I am one—are wives and mothers. They return at an age at which their husbands can apparently spare them quite easily for four days a week—I do not know whether they spare them easily, but they spare them. But it is a fact that very few of them would be accepted by constituencies to stand for another place because the age discrimination from which they suffer would rule them out. That applies not only to the Houses of Parliament; it applies throughout industry. Therefore, an attack upon age discrimination—for which the sympathy of all in your Lordships' House could surely easily be aroused—would also be of great assistance.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I too welcome the debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, for introducing it and for giving us the opportunity to assess the position of women in society and to consider their prospects for the future. It is an important debate because, as has been indicated by almost all speakers, women are an essential and increasing part of our economy. We cannot hope to maintain, let alone increase, our standard of life if we do not continue to have women's participation in the labour force.
The noble Baroness began by going back to the 19th century. I welcome what was done then and thoroughly admire the work of the early pioneers. However, I suggest that the changes with which we are concerned today began in the 1960s when the new women's movement began to emerge. Younger women began to put pressure on the governments of the day to bring about reform. In 1970 we passed the Equal Pay Act for which, as a Member of Parliament, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, was responsible. In 1975 we passed the Sex Discrimination Act. During the 17 years since that Act was passed the changes which have occurred have been important and far-reaching.
Perhaps I can say with modesty that the changes were brought about at the instigation of the Equal Opportunities Commission. From the outset the commission saw its role as a catalyst. It did not have sufficient resources to bring about all the changes on its own. Therefore, it saw its role as helping to establish the parameters of the law; to expose discrimination; to help those who were being discriminated against; and to introduce an educative process by exposing discrimination, by its codes of practice and by its guidance.
I welcomed the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. He represents a perfect example of what is needed by companies; that is, for the head of the company to give a lead. Even before he took office at National Westminster Bank, the bank was the first major employer to introduce a married women's returner scheme. The bank called it its "territorial scheme" because it brought the women back for two weeks each year for a refresher. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have underlined the importance of that.

305
As yet we have not solved the problem of how women can take a break in their career in order to have a family and then return without losing out. Career breaks, returning at the same level, accelerated promotion and intensified training are important in that respect. However, the changes that have taken place are most welcome.
As regards education, girls now represent 50 per cent. of the intake into universities. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, will share with me a sense of disappointment that as yet the numbers in engineering, science and computing are not high enough. However, the differences which existed in the areas of medicine and law have been eliminated. Women's participation in the labour force is now approaching 50 per cent. They are no longer expected to look upon paid employment as an interlude between school and marriage; they see it as part of their life pattern.
Blatant discrimination has by and large disappeared. However, the annual report of the Equal Opportunities Commission reminds us that discrimination occurs in particular against married women. Women in the professions and in management have been mentioned by most speakers because progress has been made in those areas. However, as regards the lower rungs of the ladder the latest issue of the earnings survey indicates that women still form a small proportion of the highest decile of salary earners. Attitudes have also changed. The stereotype of the dependent woman is disappearing. Even media advertising is beginning to change its image of women being housebound housewives and mothers.
Such changes are most welcome but we need to be realistic in assessing how far we have gone and how far we still have to go. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, was somewhat complacent, as were a number of other speakers. They failed to look seriously at the barriers which still face women. Many noble Lords put 1979 as the benchline. The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act was passed in 1975. I regret to say that many changes have taken place in the teeth of government opposition. There was great opposition in this House when it came to passing the amendment relating to equal value. The Leader of the House took it back twice before we eventually agreed it. The provision was brought to us simply because the European Court said that we were not complying. There have been many cases which have sought to extend women's equality into occupational pension schemes. The Marshall and Barber cases are important in that respect. They were brought about simply by women's determination and by putting pressure on the Government. They had the help of the Equal Opportunities Commission in taking such cases to Europe.
Barriers still exist in pay. The earnings of women represent only 77 per cent. of the hourly male earnings. Among the non-manual occupations where most of the women are concentrated the percentage is even less. As regards part-time workers I was and still am keen to establish flexibility in employment patterns. However, we must not do so at the expense
306
of cheap labour. The latest earnings survey shows that 80 per cent. of part-time workers earn less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold, which is 68 per cent. of full-time average mean earnings. So there is a long way to go. By and large part-time workers do not qualify for sick pay, maternity pay, holiday pay and pension entitlement. They have fewer training and promotion opportunities. As a result, their low status in that respect is taken through into employment. Only 35 per cent. of women are in occupational pension schemes compared with 60 per cent. of men. The Equal Opportunities Commission has suggested a way of helping retired women. It states:
"At £52 a week the state pension is only a quarter of women's full time average earnings and is not enough to keep them out of poverty. But it still suits women's life patterns best and provides the main income for most retired women".
Therefore, it advocates an increase in the basic retirement pension. It is also recommending other changes which, as yet, the Government have not taken on hoard. They have not taken on board the recommendations to strengthen the Sex Discrimination Act which were made after a process of consultation.
The commission is recommending a more comprehensive policy on child care, nursery care and out-of-school care. The Government still have not responded to that. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, spoke about child benefit and the fact that it is to be uprated. Child benefit was frozen in 1987 until 1991 when new rules were introduced. Had it been continually uprated since 1987 it would be worth 30p more per week for the first child and £ subsequent children. That would mainly help to eliminate poverty among many families.
While we welcome what has been done, there is still much to be done. If the Government are serious about their commitment, they will accept the Equal Opportunities Commission's recommendations on strengthening the Act. They would accept the three directives from Europe on atypical work which would cover part-time workers on maternity and parental leave. All that is essential if the future of women in our society is to continue to improve.
5.31 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, thanks to the initiative of my noble friend Lady Seccombe, we have today had a most interesting and wide-ranging debate. I am grateful to my noble friend and to all noble Lords who have taken part for their contributions.
It is particularly appropriate that this debate should take place in your Lordships' House which, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, pointed out, suffers neither from sexism nor, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, from ageism, the other part of the problem. Your Lordships' House is an example to many organisations of lesser standing.
We have not had a debate about a minority. As my noble friend said in opening, we have had a debate about the majority, an important resource for wealth creation in the coming years. When people speak about this country running out of its natural

307
resources, they forget about women. Not using the resources which women offer is like entering a race with only one leg.
As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal demonstrated thoroughly, the present situation is bright and, because of the Government's policies of the past 13 years, the future will be even brighter.
Today we have heard many examples of firsts. Perhaps I may add a few more. My party appointed the first woman Leader of the House of Lords—my noble friend Lady Young. Also, we are exceptionally proud to have on this side of the House the first ever woman Life Peer—my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. Last year the first woman director of a polytechnic joined us—my noble friend Lady Perry. Other firsts in recent years have been Lady Mary Donaldson, the first female Lord Mayor of London, and Professor Margaret Turner-Warwick, who became the first woman president of the Royal College of Physicians. Tracy Edwards led an all-female yacht crew round the world, and Liz McColgan, with her success in the Tokyo world championships, showed that having a baby does not stop women being winners.
Some women collect firsts with the greatest of ease. Barbara Mills was the first woman head of the Serious Fraud Office and is now to be the first woman Director of Public Prosecutions. There is a real danger that we shall soon be running out of firsts. There must be some nervousness in Lambeth Palace or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, pointed out, in No. 11 Downing Street. The Government have created a climate which allows the aspirations of women to be boundless.
The world works best when people work together. When it is out of balance, whether by statute or discrimination, it is unnatural and less effective. In the past women have often cloned themselves to join worlds scripted by men. We now have a climate which allows all individuals to play to their own strengths.
I should have been much amazed had not a noble Baroness opposite raised the issue that there are no women in the Cabinet. The Prime Minister's political adviser and the head of his policy unit are women. There are five female Ministers of State and one female Parliamentary Under-Secretary. The last intake of working Peers in your Lordships' House, of which I was privileged to be a member, contained five women. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that in this House our sex is well represented, in particular among the workers. This party produced the first woman Prime Minister.
It seems to me rather rich of the party opposite to criticise the lack of a woman in a group of 22 people when women have so substantially increased their influence in this Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, comes from a well respected trade union background. Does she suggest that because neither the AEU nor the EETPU have women on their national executives, they do not care about their women members?
The Government have created opportunities for women without creating discrimination where no
308
discrimination exists. If you have a Ministry for Women, what are you saying to men? Is that not the ultimate form of discrimination? Women make up half of this country's population and if the Labour Party continues to insist on treating women as a protected species, guaranteeing them places, special notepaper and departments, is it not possible that they begin to bear a close resemblance to pandas—so heavily protected that they eventually become extinct?
We who care about women know that their natural talents will lead them to the forefront without having their own special playing fields, as my noble friend Lady Strange confirmed. I must express some sympathy for women members of the Labour Party who, when they become a prospective parliamentary candidate or a member of the shadow Cabinet, will never have the satisfaction of knowing whether that was achieved on the basis of their own ability or because they were guaranteed a place. We expect women to want to be at the top of lists—any list, not one reserved for them alone. The Labour Party makes great play of the fact that it has attracted an actress to its midst. The candidate for Hampstead has been given every possible opportunity for comment. Again, I must express sympathy because it cannot be too long before she realises that the scripts she is given will never be Oscar winners.
The Labour Party seems to feel that it should guarantee women places in a man's world. On this side of the House we believe in, and have worked for, a world that is as open to women as it is to men. Above all, we have resisted the temptation to think that women would all want to do things in the same way as men do them.
It was inevitable that we should hear much about child care. For women with young children, it is a crucial issue. However, it is interesting that when the Midland Bank recently surveyed all levels of its women employees, the results showed that their first concern was that the company should provide more women's confidence training. The second was to train management to change its attitudes. Child care came third on the list. It is interesting that the noble Baronesses opposite neglected to point out in their discussions on child care that we are one of only two European countries which provide full-time compulsory education for children from the age of five.
With the successful piloting of CTCs with all-day attendance, we are seeing the development of education systems which are extremely sympathetic to working women. This Government concentrate—I am sure with the approval of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—on the fact that from 35 to 40, there are opportunities for training and returning not just to work but to a career.
I shall quote someone who, by no stretch of the imagination, could be called a feminist. Jacqueline Onassis said:
"What is sad for women of my generation is that they weren't supposed to work if they had families. What were they to do when the children were grown—watch the raindrops coming down the window pane?"
Women are beginning to realise that it is not possible to get too much education. It does not make you fat but makes you happy and rich. The number of women

309
aged 18 and over in part-time courses at further education colleges has almost doubled in 10 years since 1980. There are now more women than men on sandwich and part-time courses at further education colleges.
Distance learning is ideal for women. They can start pursuing their interests part-time and when ready to return to the workforce, be well prepared. The Government have supported the establishment of the open college and last year provided an additional £750,000 to the funding of the Open University to help towards its target of 100,000 undergraduate students by the end of the decade.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will forgive me for interrupting. The noble Baroness keeps quoting history which in some cases, as I shall explain to her later, is inaccurate. However, does she remember that it was a Labour woman who introduced the Open University?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am delighted to acknowledge that all women have contributed to improving rights and opportunities for women. That is something to which I shall return later in my speech. I was going to say in regard to Open University that "Educating Rita" was a box office success. It represented women's hopes and dreams. It is our intention to help deliver those dreams.
In my new role it gives me much pleasure to see that the public sector is leading the private sector in its concern for women as employees. The Civil Service has imaginative and innovative schemes for meeting the needs of working mothers, and women continue to move up the career path quickly.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness how many Permanent Secretaries have been women.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, there have been women Permanent Secretaries. As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, pointed out, one needs a sufficiently large base in order to get to the top in the same way as one does in the private sector. I was going to point out that the number of women at Grade 3 in the Civil Service has increased from 23 in 1984 to 33 in 1991, and, perhaps even more importantly, two of those women are part-time. I have no doubt that it will not be long before we see another woman Permanent Secretary.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will forgive me for intervening. I believe that over the past 30 years, during that critically important period, the most formidable Permanent Secretary was Dame Evelyn Sharp.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that information. The proportion of women staff who work part-time in the Civil Service and job share has increased from 4.8 per cent. in 1984 to 14.2 per cent last year. That is important for women. It is no wonder that the Civil Service College received a special commendation from the Working Mothers Association for its positive approach.
310
As a past member of the Health Service Policy Board I can only endorse the words of my noble friend Lord McColl regarding the success of policies in that sector. I was involved in the setting up of a special unit to look after the opportunities for women and the establishment of a specific person in each region with responsibility for the programme. Tough goals are set for the health service and I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that there will be women in top posts soon. I must endorse the tremendous work of Christine Hancock at the Royal College of Nursing in this regard.
Two years ago I was a member of the original board of Opportunity 2000, the Business in the Community initiative. The Prime Minister's support of the initiative based on substantial programmes was crucial to bringing along the private sector. I suspect that men march best when they march in step. With the Prime Minister's lead, Opportunity 2000 has been able to pressurise many captains of industry to be involved in the programmes for women employees in their companies. Every piece of research shows that the key to women having fair opportunities in a company is involvement from the top. The noble Viscount can relax. With my right honourable friend as Prime Minister, the country is in safe hands on the matter.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Lockwood, talked extensively about the need for legislation and the record of past legislation. Of course there is need for legislation in this area and much has been done. But there is also a need for encouragement. We have all come across the employer who is capable and legally able to stand up and say, "I am an equal opportunity employer. Everybody through the gate by 8.30". We are looking for a climate of change.
I do not apologise for our training policy. There is much to be said for the Chinese proverb which states that it is better to teach someone to fish than to give him a fish. We are determined that people shall be trained. It is not just my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal who comments with doubt on the suggestion of the minimum wage. Last year Gavin Laird commented,
"It's never worked in the past, there's no logic for it, it doesn't work in any other country and it certainly will not work in Great Britain".
I recognise the anxieties which drove much of what the noble Baroness said. I can only repeat that women —the noble Baroness emphasised this—do not wish to fit into boxes, especially boxes drawn by men. Often the desire for five hours' work is not motivated primarily by money but by the desire to escape from the home, to have adult conversation, to feel special. There are many women to whom five hours out of the home are heaven; and grandchildren are often cared for by grandparents because that solves two problems.
The regulation proposed by the Labour Party on child care and minimum wages would blow those choices out of the water financially and practically. Instead of double failure we have encouraged companies to look at double solutions—employing mothers trained and skilled during term time and students during vacations. Solutions such as those look at women's needs.

311
I should also like to comment on the often raised point of women's earnings. There is still some way to go, though not the 30 per cent. quoted. I hope that I shall please the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, by quoting from 1970 on this occasion when women's average earnings represented 63 per cent. of those of men. In 1991 that had increased to 78 per cent. It is moving in the right direction.
I worry about what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, terms "wastage" of first class degrees. Should not mothers have first class degrees? Is there a more important job than bringing up a family? With regard to providing a creche at Westminster, I should point out that the children would have to go home at the same time as we foolishly do—at midnight. Flexibility of child care is what we are looking for.
It was good to welcome the contribution of my noble friend Lady Platt to the debate. I joined the Engineering Council when she was a member and no one fought harder than my noble friend to open that first door into engineering for women. I once met a young lady who said that she wanted to be an engineer. When asked what kind of engineer she said, "An engineering engineer". My noble friend makes sure that she knows there are civils, mechanicals, and electricals, and all with increasing numbers of women participating.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, brought glorious commonsense to our discussion. I am proud that my side showed rather more support than hers in this debate. I wonder whether the noble Baroness realises that there is a lot of common ground with my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher, who was heard to say—the noble Lord, Lord Kagan will agree —"If you want something said give it to a man; if you want something done give it to a woman". She will also be pleased that the Prime Minister agrees with her anxiety about the lack of women in public appointments. The department will soon by announcing some challenging initiatives aimed at those. However, we must remember that women have two jobs, and a third job in the public appointments area is not always possible throughout their careers.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Alexander did not feel that the order of debate was set up on purpose to draw attention to this theme. As has been said by the noble Baroness opposite, it was an encouraging contribution.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I said that.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Yes, my Lords, It was an encouraging contribution. We all know that the words match the deeds. We also know that if they did not, the presence there of my noble friend Lady Young would ensure that they did.
My noble friend claimed that we were behind the EC norm in child care. The league tables usually referred to are for full-time publicly-funded provision. That neglects the United Kingdom's unique mixture of private and voluntary care. The contribution from my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve movingly
312
illustrated that no two women are the same, and what diverse strengths they have to offer! I am sure that her message will be well heard.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour emphasised the magic word "flexibility" in growing opportunities for women. It is flexibility which recognises something which has run throughout the debate; namely, that women have different needs at different times and in different circumstances. My noble friend Lord Renton had a good case, as one would expect, and very good news for those looking to enter the legal profession. My noble friend Lord Marlesford gave us good advice on how to make things happen. Possibly there will be a great up-take of single shares in many companies. I endorse his wish that the Church had joined us in today's debate. In a very brief contribution the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, possibly not only explained a reason for the rise in the divorce rate, but also why women succeed.
It was a pleasure to welcome the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who was so worthily the recipient of the Royal Society of Arts' Albert Medal this year. If there were an "A" team for women who have supported other women, everyone who has spoken today would be players, but the noble Baroness, would be centre-forward. She so rightly emphasised the difference between needs and solutions. I am pleased that she acknowledged that the Government have recognised the special entry routes for returners and lone parents which they can follow without necessarily being registered as unemployed and that the issues are not just about the under-fives, but about out-of-school hours and careers breaks.
We have to be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who is a leading supporter of our sex. Not only is she a past chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, but she keeps a constant check on the advertising world. With a few honourable exceptions, which I am sure is due to her vigilance, the advertising world seems not to have noticed the substantial change that we have discussed today. As women, it may be time that we voted with our chequebooks against some patronising and sexist companies.
I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that the United Kingdom has one of the longest periods of statutory maternity leave in the EC. It is 40 weeks. This Government talks about people. This is the Government who have introduced the Citizen's Charter which, above all, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, is about giving more power to citizens as parents, neighbours, patients, tenants and taxpayers. Women are all of those things and so are men. The sexes have different needs at different times in life. We aim to unlock the potential of all men and women to their own choice and to provide them with the information they need about schools, hospitals, and other public services so that they can make their decisions based on knowledge.
"Parent" is not a female noun. Men participate in decisions about where and how their children are cared for and what are also the needs of their own parents. As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal pointed out, the world has not always been kind to

313
women's needs, but it is changing. With more women in decision-making positions the change will occur faster. My right honourable friend Mrs. Rumbold, the Minister of State at the Home Office and lead player for the Government on women, recently said that the Home Office was surprised when it got a woman as a Minister. It cannot be too long to the day when most departments will hope that they get a woman as a Minister.
I opened my speech by saying that your Lordships' House was the right place to have this debate. I close by saying that the time is very right. Over the past 13 years this Government have put in place many programmes which have increased the opportunities for women and broken down barriers which, although not insurmountable, were undoubtedly in the way. Today no one has questioned the strength of women nor their great ability to manage fast-moving change. We are at a watershed. The canvas has been prepared. It is now for women to chose the path they prefer to tread. Your Lordships have made it very obvious that they will do so with pleasure, success and benefit to the whole country.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, this has been a most interesting, informative and very important debate. I can assure noble Lords that we are in no way complacent. It is important to recognise the great strides that have been made, because that is the spur to the younger women who follow—they look to us for an optimistic view of the future. I was very interested to hear about the encouragement of women and about the small number of women in the other place. During the past five years it has been my role to encourage younger women to get on the ladder. I have found that women need to be asked; they need that encouragement. Indeed, that may be historical because they have not seen their role in that way. But, my goodness me, they have great qualities and experience! I am sure that in the coming years we shall see very many able women in the other place.
I want to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and particularly my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. I also wish to thank all noble Lords who have stayed in the Chamber and shown great interest in this important subject. Finally, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield on her first wind-up speech. It has been an inspiration and bodes well for the future. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Economy of North West England
5.58 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton rose to call attention to the economy of the North West of England; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I cannot help but note that women are a far more interesting subject than the economy of the North West of England and I can hardly blame them for that.
I must declare an interest in this subject. Having been born and bred in the North West of England and having a very close connection with its industry, land and its people, I am a great believer in it. I am very proud of it. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the economy of the North West today because I believe that it presents enormous opportunities for investment, for people and for Great Britain to make an ever greater contribution not just to the economy of Europe but to the economy of the world.
In the North West we have a great history and tradition of economic growth. We were the first people to see the opportunities of the Industrial Revolution. The North West is the home of many of our leading inventors, producers and entrepreneurs who have laid the foundation of the wealth not just of the North West but of the nation as a whole. We take great strides as regards railways, canals, shipping, computers and in all the other major industries of this country.
Traditionally, we have been manufacturers of commodities which have been sold throughout the world. In recent years there has been a greater understanding of the need for quality and the marketing of that quality throughout the world. The region is second only to the South East in levels of employment and output. Our GDP is now running at some £42 million per annum.
However, I must draw attention to the fact that in 1979 the North West represented about 11.1 per cent. of the total GDP of the UK, whereas in 1989 the figure was only 10.2 per cent. That shows that we in the North West must catch up with the general increase in the level of economic activity which has taken place throughout the UK over the past 10 years. We have an enormous range of economic and commercial activities that are spread throughout the largest and most effective companies in the country. I can only mention one or two, but all noble Lords will be aware of the importance of ICI and its chemical industry; of Turner and Newall, which is now producing car parts to sell throughout the world, including Japan; of Rolls-Royce, Ford, Vauxhall and Pilkington, to name but a few of the enormously important companies on which lies the base of our economic growth.
The Mersey Valley, which I remember because it is very close to where I have lived throughout my life, has now the largest concentration of chemical and related industries in Europe. Shell's largest United Kingdom refinery is at Stanlow and from where I live, if the wind blows in the wrong direction I am very much aware that it is there. The company tries to burn off all the surplus but some of it does not get burnt as well as it might.
There are now other major oil complexes in Fleetwood and Whitehaven, Alderley Park and Macclesfield. In terms of pharmaceuticals we are now the second most important area in the country. Biotechnology has made enormous strides and there are new investments in the Merseyside area, as well as in other areas in the region.
The headquarters of British Nuclear Fuels at Risley, Warrington, is very important to us in the North West. BNF has led the way in terms of

315
technology and its scientists are now leading the world handling nuclear fuels and their waste products. That in itself is an opportunity because those skills are producing a much safer industry than many people believe it to be. One of the great successes has been the opening to the general public of nuclear fuel establishments, enabling visitors to be shown how safe these activities are by people who understand what it is all about.
In referring to the large range of business activities that we have, I should like to use one example to draw the attention of your Lordships to another aspect. British Vita is also a very important company in the North West. It is based north west of Manchester and makes foam products for the automotive and furniture industries. It is now exporting 80 per cent. of its output into Western Europe. It has been one of our fastest growing companies throughout Western Europe, with many subsidiaries there as well as direct exports. The company tells me that a most important key to its success is the stability of the exchange rate. We have had many debates on how to deal with the question of stable currencies throughout Europe, but what is of most importance to the manufacturers and exporters in the North West of England is a stable exchange and monetary system which allows them to invest and plan ahead in a known financial position.
There is no doubt that the demand throughout the EC countries for a stable monetary system has come from a drive from their commercial and industrial investors. Companies give that push to politicians for a more a stable currency. That push will come more and more from our industrialists and it is something of which we must be aware if we are to play our part in Europe. If we want to get the full benefit of the market that that presents then monetary stability throughout Europe is a very important aspect. I shall refer later to the importance of the low levels of interest and inflation as part of the long-term view that business needs in order to plan ahead.
Financial services have taken enormous strides in the North West. There are now 60 different banks in Manchester and they are offering a very wide service. They are essential for financial support if companies are to grow and invest.
I cannot help referring at this time to one of the problems that has arisen in the North West and I know that it has been referred to by bankers and financiers in the past. Because we have a large range of small companies providing services to larger companies the question of payment can become extremely important. The impact on the cash flow—particularly of large companies, on the margin of profitability and existence—is that if a large buyer starts to pay very late and then asks for another month's credit, that can be the very factor that puts a smaller company into bankruptcy.
I remember when I was exporting cheese from Cheshire to a large company in the United States. I must admit that it was a very important customer. I received a letter from the company to the effect that it planned to build a major new store that would increase the throughput of the company. When
316
completed the company would be able to buy double the amount of cheese that it was buying from us at that time. However, the project had to be financed and in order to finance it the company said that it intended delaying payments for two months. I thought that that was very nice in the long term, but the immediate short-term effect could turn a successful company into one that cannot survive for very long.
The whole question of payment, particularly from large companies to smaller companies, will ultimately have to be addressed by government, particularly as we move into the EC and the single market where there are different rules and regulations which do not apply here.
Industry has had to adapt. We have had a difficult recession which has impacted on all companies. Many smaller companies have gone to the wall because for various reasons they could not survive. The larger and more efficient companies have made changes which have made it possible for them to survive and to make profits. However, in order to do that they have had to make considerable changes in their staffing. Therefore, we now have large companies having to make decisions concerning job losses. That is an area which is becoming considerably serious in the North West. I believe that the North West can tackle many of those problems if allowed to do so and to use its own initiative on how best to tackle them.
We have to understand that more training will be needed. Undoubtedly people will have to change their jobs more often. If there is a different financial structure that gives stability in terms of interest rates and currency fluctuations, and the currency market in Europe stabilises, there will be greater volatility in the employment of people as they move about. We can already see the change within companies which at one time employed a number of people needed at their peak of production. Those companies are now employing fewer people at the trough of production and using sources of labour from employment agencies to make up the difference. That means that people will have to be trained and have the opportunities to do different jobs. We shall have to invest in a wider range of opportunities for people to move into as industry fluctuates.
The cuts in the defence industry are especially important to us in the North West. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Chalfont will be speaking later in the debate. No doubt he will refer to that situation with more expertise than I can. I shall not refer to his company but I shall refer to British Aerospace, which I understand is to shed some 3,500 jobs as a result of the defence cuts. Those people are very highly skilled and able workers whose ability has made an enormous contribution to the economic strength of this country. They are important not only for what they produce in the North West but because they are producing on a world scale. It is essential that a way is found to utilise those skills and resources for the benefit of the people in the North West and for the nation generally.
An organisation which I believe is doing a marvellous job in this regard is NIMTEC; that is, the North West regional technological centre. NIMTEC is taking a great initiative in moving people from one

317
company to another to learn new skills and using the skills of people who have lost their jobs to train others who want to move into that area. NIMTEC receives certain funds from the Government but it also raises its own funds from supporters and companies throughout the North West. It does an excellent job and I believe could be called on to play an even more effective role in the retraining and the management of people as they move from one sector to the next.
The development corporations in the North West have been enormously successful. When set up they have been able to cut through the red tape and the planning regulations in order to let new development and investment take place quickly, to the benefit of everyone. I support them enormously. There is the possibility of the Olympic Games coming to the North West and being based in Manchester in the year 2000. Mr. Bob Scott, who is the leader of the campaign, has been working enthusiastically to bring the games to the North West. That is something to be admired. I hope that the Government will give us their support to enable that to take place. What is needed is not so much resources as an ability to turn the efforts of everyone involved, through the Government's leadership, into a British bid which can bring prestige, benefit and enormous investment to the whole of the North West.
Output per head in the North West is consistently higher than the national average by as much as 12.5 per cent. People may not appreciate or realise the fact that 98 per cent. of all companies on Merseyside have been without strikes of any kind since 1982. One of the points that concerns us on Merseyside and in the North West—the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, will no doubt make similar remarks on this matter—is that the benefits and opportunities of Liverpool and Merseyside are missed. The opportunities on Merseyside for investment as the future unfolds will be enormous. Merseyside has solved so many of its problems. If anyone has money and wants to put it into buildings, into a factory or into people he could not put it into a better place than Merseyside. I hope that more and more people will do so.
An interesting development in the North West is a different way of employing people. I understand that throughout the UK some 500,000 people are now employed by employment agencies. The agencies employ experts and specialists in certain areas of industrial activity and then hire them out to companies as they need them. I cannot find a specific figure, but my researches suggest that probably half of those 500,000 people, and certainly over a third, are employed in the North West. Some 200,000 people in the North West may in fact be employed in manufacturing industry, but statistically are counted as employed in service industries because employment agencies employ them. These companies have highly skilled people whom they can move about and I believe that we can use them to much greater advantage. They are private companies which are willing to put resources and effort into retraining people. They are doing a great deal already to find outlets for people who will lose their jobs because of the changes referred to earlier.
The next area to which I should like briefly to refer is communications. We now have in the North West, prepared and paid for by the Government over the past 10 years, some of the finest motorway structures and systems anywhere. Cheshire has more motorways than any other county in the whole of England. Manchester Airport is now becoming an important international airport. There is an urgent need for a second runway, an issue which will have to be decided very shortly. I trust that the Government will support that proposal. The number of flights through Manchester Airport has doubled in the past 10 years and could double again in the next 10 years. Manchester Airport would gain from its shares being owned by the general public and not, as is the case now, by the Greater Manchester local authorities. This would give it an impetus to take a wider perspective of the whole of the North West and would be to the region's benefit.
We shall gain much from the Channel Tunnel links which will be put through by British Rail. When the tunnel is completed in a couple of years' time it will be possible for freight to travel from the North West to the main German and French centres in about 18 hours. A passenger will be able to travel from Crewe to Paris in six hours without getting off the train. That will be of enormous benefit to trade and other activities in the North West.
I believe that great opportunities will come as a result of the GATT negotiations. During the 1950s and 1960s, and prior to us moving into the CAP in the 1970s, Merseyside was the main importing port for cereals and other grown raw materials from Canada and the United States. We could return to that situation when the GATT negotiations are completed and when decisions have been taken on world prices for cereals and other commodities. This will bring back the opportunity for us to add value to products coming in from Canada and America. The North West could then become a centre for such added value use, both as the place to which the products will come first, and as the place where we can then add value to them for easy shipment on to the rest of Europe. A great commercial opportunity will be presented over the next few years as these matters are decided. The Port of Liverpool will be a key to this issue. Today it has reported record profits and record tonnage through the port. The removal of the legislative restrictions on labour practices proved an enormous benefit to Liverpool.
Time is beating me. I am a great supporter of the North West of England. I see a great opportunity for it to grow and develop, but it will grow and develop from the freedom and initiative of people themselves and not from what governments do. It has grown over the past 10 years because this Government have dealt with matters in that way. We have been left alone so that companies can use their own initiative and take their own views. It is when government get close to these matters that they make mistakes. We now have an opportunity over the next 10 years to bring enormous capital to the North West and for it to be

319
the engine for moving Great Britain out of what is now a recession into what I hope will be great success in the future. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for the fact that they should be looking at my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn and not at me. He had some problems with dates and it was thought better that we should both be here at the appointed time.
I extend my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I certainly would not dream of diminishing in any way the salesman's talk that he went through in regard to the North West. But I must say that I did not recognise the North West that he described in the context of the United Kingdom or of Europe. When we knew of today's debate some of us who had decided to participate in it went to Regional Trends to see how the North West is doing in relation to the United Kingdom. We all read the figures. I have decided not to use those figures because so few people appear to be interested in them that it would be a waste of time to do so. I would rather talk about the North West in the context of the wider economy.
I take this opportunity to correct a misapprehension on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about my belief in the Port of Liverpool as an efficient company. I have never had any doubt about the efficiency of the Port of Liverpool ever since Mr. Fitzpatrick became its chief executive and got together with the trade unions to tackle the job. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, may be thinking of my remarks on the Merseyside Development Corporation, which is a different kettle of fish, if I may use that description. There is no doubt about the efficiency of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company.
During our previous debate on the subject, the noble Lord referred to restrictive practices. I should like to point out to him that there were indeed restrictive practices in Mersey docks. Most of them were completely and utterly supported by the employers. That was because the profession of stevedoring creates a situation whereby you must have the men to man the boat, but in the old days at the beginning of unloading only a few were required. Therefore, the employers turned a blind eye to what came to be known as a bad restrictive practice. It went on for years.
It is not all the fault of the trade unions. When we look at the way that the dock board finally became efficient, credit must be given to the trade unions. They worked very well with the employers. They accepted thousands of redundancies and managed to get them on to a more level footing. However, the problem was that once the system became efficient then of course it damaged the prospects of work for the dockers, who were made redundant. The number of dockers has dropped from 50,000 to about 2,000 at present. That was symptomatic of what was happening in that part of the North West.
When I looked at the statistics, I realised that a very good case could be made for saying that there should
320
be more central government assistance to the North West. However, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, seemed to point the other way. Indeed, he painted such a bright picture of the North West that one might believe that everything was all right.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example of what has happened since the last war in a small place in Merseyside. I know it well; it is called Garston. It is two miles square. It had two copper factories, one of the world's largest firms of construction engineers, one of the largest manufacturers of bobbins for the textile trade, three docks, Dunlops (which made practically all the golf balls that were used in the country) and a large tannery. But not one of those organisations is left in that part of the North West.
As a reflection of that fact, there used to be six banks in Garston but there is now only one. That is symptomatic of the long-term decline in the North West of England. It is not just because it is the North West; it is because it is a peripheral area of Europe. I do not think that we have as yet faced up to the situation; namely, that the problems we have in such areas are caused by the fact that we are a periphery of Europe and are, therefore, losing out. Moreover, unless we tackle the problem, we shall continue to lose out.
I think that the Government should look at the North West, Northern Ireland or Scotland and realise that, unless something is done about it, what they are seeing there is the future for the United Kingdom. Over and again in this House I have referred to the activity which takes place here in government circles as regards the provision of jobs in London and the provision of facilities for civil servants. There is no such provision in the North. I know that I shall be told that some jobs have been moved to Merseyside, but the number is considerably less than the number of jobs that were promised in 1979. Indeed, at that time 3,500 were going to Merseyside and we were starting to build the offices; but as soon as this Government took office they scrapped the project. Since then we have had 1,800 jobs in one place and 600 in another. It is all too late.
I should like to point out the parallel to that in the international field. What are the Government doing about the growth of government activity in the golden triangle in Europe? How are we to spread the activity caused by the European government into the peripheral areas of Europe? The Government seem to be doing almost everything to prevent activity coming here from Europe. Certainly, by their hesitance in regard to the finances in Europe, I think that they have quite clearly indicated to the rest of the world that there is not much possibility of the central bank of Europe, or the centre of the financial undertakings in Europe, coming to London. That is because the Government still do not realise that we are very much on the periphery of Europe; and that is how we shall stay. Even today a magnificent new building is being constructed to house the MPs and the officials who make the Euro-activity such a prosperous one for that area. That will continue until we realise, as I said before, that we are on the periphery of Europe and that we must do something about it.

321
I give your Lordships another example of something that happened in the North West. The first time I visited America I went on a fact-finding tour for the City of Liverpool. We were taken to Chicago and San Francisco. All I could hear when I talked to the leaders of the financial world in San Francisco and Chicago was praise for Liverpool. That was because Liverpool was the home of one of the biggest insurance companies in the world. When the San Francisco earthquake and the great fire of Chicago took place what happened? The Royal Insurance Company of Liverpool paid up on the dot, overnight, and settled every claim. Let us compare that with the attitude that we now have here in the capital, at Lloyd's in the City of London, where numerous people are squirming to get out of the obligation to pay up on a risk that they undertook voluntarily.
Why is that attitude prevailing? It is prevailing because of the attitude that we have had over the past 10 or 12 years: everyone wants everything and they want it now. Such people go into Lloyd's as names, but as soon as they have to pay the bill they start squealing. It will not be long before they ask the Government to get them out of their obligations. The attitude that prevailed in the past is not the kind of attitude that prevails now.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, has great faith in market forces. He mentioned British Aerospace. Well, British Aerospace has said quite clearly that it is building a successful aeroplane—the 125—at Broughton in Clwyd, which is just outside the North West but which affects the area. But what is the company's attitude to the 125? It is talking about selling off that part of the business. It is a profitable concern that can make £50 million a year but the company is going to sell it off because the short-term interests of British Aerospace say that it should be sold off.
I watched a recent television programme in which short-termism was exposed. The programme showed how that had led to the failure to develop several inventions; for example, penicillin, the jet engine, and so on. Why was that? It was because market forces had again dictated to firms that they could not afford to develop the inventions that were made in this country.
Once again time catches up with us. I have two, three or four examples of where firms in the North West are getting rid of operations either because they cannot obtain the cash or they are not willing to carry on with the development of certain projects because they cannot afford to look at the long-term prospects. Somehow or other this Government and the country must get out of that habit. We must get into the habit of realising that we are competing with a very big area of land in Europe and we must match its ability to invest.
I shall conclude on the same note that I used on the last occasion that I spoke. I address my remarks to all parties. We must make up our minds. Europe is there and whether we like it or not we are part of it. We must not become a periphery of Europe like Merseyside has been a periphery of the United Kingdom for the past 50 years. The consequences of that were well
322
illustrated in a recent editorial in the Daily Telegraph, which referred to a photograph of Great Britain at night. It described the swathes of light down the east coast and in the South East, but said that the rest of the country was in darkness. It went on to talk about the tragedy of the people in the South East and in the eastern parts of our land who could not see the stars at night, almost completely ignoring the fact that the darkness on the photograph meant non-activity in those dark areas. The dark areas were on the periphery. It is no wonder that Scotland wants to be independent or that we are hearing similar demands from everywhere else. The peripheries of this country have been neglected for too long and I am afraid that they will be neglected still more in the future.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, for introducing the debate. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, referred to the relative lack of interest shown in it. Perhaps I may point out another small fact. Although 11 noble Baronesses rose to speak in our earlier debate on the subject of economic opportunities for women, not one noble Baroness has felt moved to speak on the economic problems facing the men and women of the North West. I mention that purely as a statistical fact, not necessarily drawing any great lessons from it.
I do not want to follow any line taken by either of the two noble Lords who have already spoken but shall concentrate on a small part of the North West. As many of your Lordships know, it is an area in which I have a special interest. I refer to the Furness peninsula—that little area of the North West with the Cumbrian mountains to the north and the bay of Morecambe to the south. It is not only a remote part of the North West but, culturally and socially, it is an isolated part of England.
The main town is Barrow-in-Furness. I believe that the reason that I want to talk about that town will be fairly obvious. It is the home of Vickers Shipbuilders, my own company. The town is especially interesting and crucial to me because over the years, since the latter part of the 19th century, Barrow has become increasingly dependent on the great industry of shipbuilding. Before that—after the discovery of coal and iron ore in that part of the world—Barrow was a great iron and steel-making town. That was until, in the 20th century, the cold hand of modern economics was laid on the area and the steelworks closed down. More recently—for the whole of this century—Barrow-in-Furness and the whole of the surrounding area has been a shipbuilding centre. For 100 or more years, Barrow has produced merchant and naval vessels for the defence of the United Kingdom and for exports, which have been of great benefit to the economy of the United Kingdom.
Generations of the people of Barrow—"Barrovians" as they call themselves—have built ocean liners, tankers, cargo vessels, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and, of course, submarines. As the demand for more and more specialised and sophisticated warships emerged, it

323
became difficult for Barrow to continue to make merchant ships as well as naval vessels. It had to decide on what it was going to specialise in. It was not entirely a free choice, but Barrow chose to concentrate on warship building. By the 1970s, the whole of the town and its surrounding area had become dependent on warship building—on the building of both surface ships and submarines.
When in 1986—not so long ago—the shipyard was privatised, it became Vickers Shipbuilders or VSEL. There was still a good chance and a good reason to believe that this country's naval programmes alone could provide a good future for the people of Barrow. In those far-off days, there was no fear that there would be a sudden reduction in its work or any great change or crisis in the economy of the area. While it continued to build its submarines according to the naval programmes of the time, Barrow believed that there would be time to diversify and perhaps to move away from its total dependence on warship building.
However, the whole scene suddenly changed. There can be no doubt that it changed for the better in world terms. The disintegration of the communist empire and the virtual disappearance of the Soviet threat made it possible for the West to change its defence plans. It is arguable that the West has changed those defence plans too quickly, too suddenly and unwisely, but that is not an argument in which I intend to become involved this evening. All I shall say is that the British Government's new defence policy, which was the result of those great changes in the international situation, and which was published under the name that is now familiar to most of us—Options for Change—has had an enormous impact on the defence industries of this country, and especially on communities such as Barrow. I do not want to make any value judgment in the context of this debate on the changes that have been made in the shipbuilding and, especially, the submarine programmes because in the current circumstances it is right that our defence policy should be reviewed. My point is simply the impact on communities such as Barrow has been enormous and, in many senses, could be disastrous.
For 25 years, between 12,000 and 14,000 people in Barrow have been employed in the business of shipbuilding. Today, that number is down to just over 10,000, and it is still declining. The business plan of my own company envisages that by the middle of the 1990s the number of employees will be reduced to 7,000. In other words, the workforce will have been halved. When I tell your Lordships that a quarter of the population of Barrow is employed in the shipyards, the impact on the people of the town and its surroundings will become obvious.
The next largest company to my own in the Barrow area employs 500 people. That gives some indication of the impact that the changes will have. I need hardly say that, apart from those who are directly employed in the shipyards, other people are affected, such as the families of those employees, and the people who keep the shops that provide them with their goods. In addition, the pubs in which they drink in the evenings and the restaurants to which they go out to eat are also
324
affected. It is not difficult, therefore, to envisage the impact of the changes on that small, tightly-knit community, which is virtually a company town. Barrow is virtually a shipbuilders' town.
Barrow is a tough, resilient and independently minded community. Members of your Lordships' House do not have constituencies, but I think that I can say that, if we had, Barrow would be my constituency. That is why I am deeply concerned about the future of its people. They have met their challenges in the past resolutely and toughly, but this is perhaps the most serious crisis that the people of the area have faced.
I know that Her Majesty's Government share my concern. I am not suggesting that their attitude displays any complacency or lack of interest. They have already offered financial support to the extent of something like £7 million for setting up factories to attract new industry to the area. Barrow Town Council, the county council and VSEL are working together to solve some of the problems. I want to make the point—this is perhaps where I find myself somewhere in the middle of the argument that seemed to he developing between the noble Lords, Lord Wade and Lord Sefton—that there may be no community in this country, not even in Europe, which is so dependent upon one industry. It follows logically from what I have said, that that must now change. It is changing. The initiative known as Furness Enterprise, which is funded jointly by VSEL, Barrow Town Council and Cumbria County Council, is attacking the problem; but it is attacking it at a time when there is not just a national recession but a worldwide recession. It makes the task a hundred times more difficult than in times of greater prosperity.
Although I believe that the people of the area are a special case, I also make the point that they are not asking for government handouts. The people of Barrow and their families are much too independent and fiercely proud for that. Whereas the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said that there must not be too much government intervention, and others say that market forces cannot be allowed to run not in the area, I find myself somewhere between the two lines of thinking. We should ask the Government to help Barrow, but to help Barrow to help itself. There are some vital needs. There is a need for incentives to attract new industries to the area to take the place of shipbuilding which, by the logic of events, is drawing to a close.
We need improved communications networks, especially the road link to the M.6. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, said that the whole of the United Kingdom is richer in communications than it has ever been. That is true, but it is not true of Furness and Barrow. We need a new link to the M.6 to bring Barrow into the structure and fabric of the United Kingdom. In the post-war environment we need to attract new industry to the town which is filled with skilled, experienced and hard working people who will turn their hands to anything they consider to be dignified and worthwhile. There are men and women in that community who, over the years, have made a major contribution to the peace and stability which we

325
all enjoy. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give an assurance that they will not be left alone to pay the full price of what is now called the peace dividend.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Wade for introducing the debate. I shall try to concentrate upon the difficult question of how a region flourishes. What causes it to flourish? What causes a country to flourish? Before I embark upon that subject, I feel the need to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, and to say something about the deep and important subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Of course, I shall not convince the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, but I believe that he will agree that the whole country, not just Merseyside, has had to become internationally profitably competitive to keep jobs.
Sometimes the fault, when we have not been competitive, has been that of the trade unions; sometimes management; and sometimes a combination of both. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, does not convince me that our problems are particularly and solely because we are what he calls peripheral. There are some formidably competitive and fully employed countries, such as Japan, that are way out on the edge of the map from our point of view; and yet look at our high streets and see how much they penetrate. We have to become internationally profitably competitive, and that provides the background for national prosperity and for regional prosperity.
Lying behind successful firms—large, medium and small, and my noble friend Lord Wade has given a brief roll call of some of them in the North West—are a group of people of whom most of us do not know the names; most of them are unsung; most of them are even unrecognised when they die—obituaries seldom refer to them; they are—we have a French word for them—the entrepreneurs, the job creators. Sometimes they create small firms; sometimes the small firms grow; sometimes they exist and flourish in big firms that encourage them departmentally; but they are phenomena that are far too little recognised in this country. Sometimes they are engineers; sometimes they are generalists; sometimes they are administrators; mostly, they are impatient for something—sometimes for money; sometimes for fulfilment and satisfaction; sometimes for solving a problem; sometimes for respect; and they are the salt of the earth. They do not come because of good education, and they do not come because of good birth. They do not come because of happy homes or unhappy homes. We do not know how they come. They come in abundance in some peoples. Look at the Chinese and how they flourish almost wherever they are.
We used to be enterprising as a country. Look at the inventions we pioneered. There was the agricultural revolution; the commercial revolution where we rivalled the Italians in our credit inventions; and then the industrial revolution. We were known for our enterprise. Somehow it has dwindled in this country. It may be a bit of snobbery or distaste for trade; but there it is. We rely for much of our enterprise upon people who come in from abroad—
326
God bless them! We have our own people. There is an abundance of talent, but trade is not seen, as it were, as respectable, essential and important.
I welcome the reference made by my noble friend Lord Wade to the achievements of entrepreneurs in the North West. Many of them have been the founders of what became great industries, but the conundrum for us is: how on earth do we encourage them? The Government cannot do much about it. The Government can remove discouragements. They can take care that their tax system does not demotivate. Even the people of Barrow—I have huge respect for them and for what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said that they have done—will note that in St. Helens a parallel situation existed with the Pilkington Glass Company. Even in Consett —I was the Minister concerned—the overwhelmingly large employer of Consett's people closed. But the people of St. Helens and Consett show what can be done through enterprise, some of it locally generated, and some of it from outside.
Among the many things that must be done within Barrow—no doubt a bit by government, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said—is the encouragement of enterprise within the community. One would like to see respect paid to local entrepreneurs, be they small, medium or large. We must recognise—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, and I can agree on this point —the ferocious mobilisation of talent that goes on when inventions occur, wherever they occur, or new markets are opened up.
I remember the case of the scanner which was invented by EMI, I think. It is said that General Electric in America mobilised engineers in scores, mobilised credit, mobilised design and research and development, and put up on the factory wall, "We are at war with EMI. We must destroy them", and it captured the world market. That is the tone of the game. It is fierce and it is entirely understandable. I hope that my noble friend Lord Sefton will not interrupt me. We are all limited on time and he must accept that the competition is ferocious and sometimes we are the competitor. Look at our performance in pharmaceuticals, in the engineering industry and the defence industries and aerospace. We are the formidable competitors who take markets from other people, so we have our own successes.
I ask: what can the Government do? The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, may not agree, but I do not believe that the Government can do much through more spending. Every time they spend more they have to tax more or borrow more and put up interest rates. We reach the silly situation where the Government subsidise public sector Peter at the cost of dismissing private sector Paul. There is not much fun in that, over a certain point. So it is not as easy as that. The Government must find ways to encourage local enterprise and the first step towards it is that people should understand its importance.
I regret that we do not even have a word for the character who works the magic, the Aladdin who creates jobs. Very often people go through the bankruptcy courts and suffer personally. If one reads, as I have read late in my life, Samuel Smiles, one sees

327
to what extent the families of the entrepreneurs often suffer because of the intensity of the desire of the entrepreneur to succeed, for whatever combination of motives.
I beg my noble friends occasionally to dip into Samuel Smiles for some of the anecdotes that were translated into, I think, 70 foreign languages. The Khedive of Turkey showed to the British ambassador at the time his proudest possession—the book by Samuel Smiles on his shelf.
I do not mean that the entrepreneur should be glamourised or notorious; I simply mean that there should be respect and understanding. It is important that there should be encouragement of the links between the universities, the polytechnics, as they were, and local businesses. Noble Lords may be familiar with a book called The Cambridge Phenomenon describing the avalanche of new small hi-tech companies in Cambridge which owed their birth probably to the part-time presence of scientists from the university. It has dwindled in recent hard days, but it is still a phenomenon.
We must hope that in the local colleges there is training in business planning so that entrepreneurs may at least make coherent plans. I hope that in regions like the North West credit facilities will increasingly encourage entrepreneurship. I cannot suggest a way in which we can achieve the flair of people who have the reputation for enterprise that once we had, but I suggest that there is a great deal to be done in the North West to encourage what it has always had—enterprise—in the future, as in the past.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for initiating and encouraging the debate today. Most of us who come from the North West will agree that it is a proud part of the country. I used that word once before in this House; we are a gradely lot as well. I should explain that by a "gradely lot" I mean that we are good and sincere people who want to get on in the world and do the best for the people with whom we live and work.
Over many years, right from the Industrial Revolution, the North West has experienced all kinds of struggles. We had difficulties at that time and then, in my lifetime, there were the problems of the cotton industry in the 1930s, the slump and the depression. In the past 10 years, particularly recently, we have had many changes. In my area of Lancashire, the cotton industry has virtually gone out of existence.
We realise that there is only so much that the Government can do, only so much that they can give. We realise that we are competing with other parts of the country; all we in the North West want is our fair share of the national cake. It is important. We are looking again at the ways in which we can rejuvenate our industry and I am glad to say that a different attitude is now growing throughout the North West: an attitude of partnership between local businesses, local authorities, educationalists and so on who are now coming together more than ever before.
328
I am also glad that there is now the will to work closely with education, training and retraining. We realise what has already been said, that things are constantly changing. No one can afford to stand still. Therefore it is important that we recognise that people will change their job several times in a lifetime. We as a country, rather than a region, must provide more opportunities for training and retraining.
In the North West we are not getting the full opportunities. We are proud of our establishments: the universities and the polytechnic in Lancashire which will shortly become a university. We are proud of the University of Manchester, the University of Lancaster and the Polytechnic of Lancashire, as it now is. I do not know what name it will use, as there is a dispute at the moment over its name. Nevertheless, we are proud of our institutions, our training colleges and what they do to help improve the lot of industry. We are also proud of our cultural activities in the North West: the Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, the Halle Orchestra in Manchester. These are all part of life and part of the economy of the region. That is great.
Over the years time and time again we have looked at ourselves and at the various aspects and changes that are taking place. I support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on the situation in Barrow which is different from the rest of the region. Barrow is isolated and deserves a little more of the national cake than even some other places in the North West.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, I do not believe that we can compare geographically the situation in Barrow with the situation as it was in St. Helens. St. Helens was a completely different area and in those days there were more opportunities for people there to diversify than in Barrow where opportunities are limited. Therefore I support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on that.
One point I wish to get over is the partnership aspect of the change. None of us can be isolationist. I was a director of a company that found itself in difficulties recently. I know the problems of a company in that position, even with all the efforts that are put into trying to solve them. I know how difficult it is when we have to tell people that they will lose their jobs and how we must try to change things. It does not just involve the people who will lose their jobs and their families. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said it involves the local shopkeeper and the surrounding community; they suffer in the many ripples from the one plunge of someone being dismissed or made redundant. These are the difficulties we face.
The partnership aspect in the North West is great. I am very proud of the way in which my own town of Blackburn is tackling the situation with partnerships. The Groundwork Trust, the Prince of Wales Trust and other schemes are working together with the old established associations like the chambers of commerce, the chambers of trade, and so on. They all realise that they must pool their resources and knowhow.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, spoke about entrepreneurs who have helped a great deal. I can think of entrepreneurs in my lifetime in my own area,

329
such as the people who introduced the tufting industry. In east Lancashire we are proud of starting the tufting industry and what it brought to the area. We are also proud of Netlon which was introduced and developed by an entrepreneur. These are important industries that have created jobs not just in my own town and region but throughout the world.
The situation is changing so rapidly that we have to be able to recognise change when it comes along. We must be able to recognise and encourage a budding entrepreneur. Central government and regional organisation must provide him with the essentials he needs to develop his skills and ideas.
Some time ago, during my chairmanship of the finance committee in my town, two entrepreneurs came to us and said, "We have got money from the banks to buy machinery but we haven't got any capital to build a factory. What can you as a local authority do to help us?" Our job was then to build a factory for them and help them all we possibly could. In three years they had bought the factory from us. That was good. This is where local authorities can help if they are allowed to do so. Through partnership schemes they are doing this sort of work, and long may it continue.
We are not crying for additional help in the North West. We are just crying for our fair share of the opportunities to develop.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, these Wednesday debates are the most valuable and enlightening of any of the debates that we have, much more so than when we have a crowded Chamber with Front Bench flags flying. We have had quality contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who spoke as the head of a very big organisation in a very important part of the country, and from my noble friend Lord Joseph.
Also, it is valuable and delightful to see the contrast even on the same Bench. It was interesting to hear the negative and rather dismal approach of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. My spirits, however, were raised by the excellent contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. That sort of enlightenment is typical of the Wednesday debate atmosphere.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and recognise his problem. Rather than St. Helens, to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred, I would ask him to keep in mind the amazing survival of Corby. There, a similar problem to that being experienced in Barrow occurred in the steel industry. The miraculous revival in Corby perhaps offers hope to the noble Lord and his associates, given a favourable world atmosphere for trade and the sort of approach that he mentioned. Nobody wants complete freedom or dog-eats-dog, as some people try to describe privatisation; nor do we want the dead hand of complete nationalisation. There must be partnership of both. That is what we have in Corby, and it would be very valuable in overcoming the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, described so vividly.
330
The only reason I am in London today is that the initiator of the debate is a friend of mine and I know his views. I thought that it would be helpful to come as a witness to support those views. My claim for being a witness who is entitled to be listened to is that for a number of years I was the Member of the European Parliament representing most of the North West area that is under discussion today. Very few people have a better idea as to how opinions are going than a parliamentary Member who, if he does his job properly, has access to the people who are in management at the top and has knowledge of the trade unions and their representatives at the bottom. Certainly, if you are a Tory, you are made very well aware of the problems of the shopkeeper and the small businessman. I had all of that in the area to which my noble friend referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, called it a rosy picture. The picture that my noble friend described was the picture as I saw it—not only as I saw it but obviously as other people saw it. The fact is that in recent years we have had 600 overseas companies accepting the North West as the base for developing their business in Europe and the rest of the world. Those people are interested in putting their investment where they think it will be useful and beneficial to them and to the people they employ. They chose the North West. That is the sort of evidence that would cause me to come down on the side—call it rosy, or what you like—of my noble friend rather than accept the dismal, upsetting picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton.
My own businesses are in the West Midlands, next door to the North West. The problem there is identical to that of the North West, and the story being told about the North West would be exactly the same there. I found that the skills, the energy and the sense of responsibility that existed in the part of the North West that I represented, which was something like eight or 10 local authority areas, were really outstanding. That is what my noble friend was saying. It was for that reason that over 600 companies were prepared to bring their investment to that part of the country. The other point that my noble friend made was the absence, by and large, of industrial unrest.
The only weakness that I find in the North West —and I do not think even the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, would be altogether pleased—concerns the local authorities in terms of their enterprise and the objectivity of people who want to make a success of things. Too much of what I would call party politics is allowed to be brought into their job. I was a local councillor for 20 years. At the beginning of that time there was no party squabbling. People were elected as councillors because the local people knew them. In terms of whether they were Tory, Labour, Liberal or whatever, they retained all that, but their personal standing, character and sense of responsibility were what caused them to be elected. That was reflected in the council chambers. That situation does not now prevail.
My noble friend made a most effective plea for people to pay proper regard to the advantages of bringing investment to the North West. One of the

331
problems, however, could well be the reputation arising from the antics of some local authorities. I do not think that that is a true picture of what is happening in those areas, but in these days of media control it is what hits the headlines, and it is the most damaging of all.
Along the lines of what my noble friend Lord Joseph said, what bothers me—and this applies to other regions as well as the North West—is the resistance in so many quarters to reducing taxation. If one takes a penny off the pound they will put it back. I cannot understand that approach.
The North West provides a good example of what I shall say. I could give figures but I shall not take up your Lordships' time. We are living in an age when, thanks to medical advances and more sensible living, people are living longer. I am an old age pensioner so I can say things about pensioners without being accused of looking in from the outside. The number of people who are beyond working age is growing, and that is good. At the other end of the scale—and the North West is a good example—people are staying in education longer in order to obtain the skills which my noble friend mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to the polytechnics and schools. That is also right. However, those two large sections of the population are using up money. I do not criticise that. The old, who are past working age, and the larger group of young people, who are not yet an economically productive part of the population, have to be paid for.
Those groups are paid for by that little group in the middle. Those are usually people who are at the age when they are raising their own families and facing normal family expenses. They are the people I want to help by reducing taxation. They are the people it is vital that we help if they are to produce the wealth that is necessary if there is to be the compassion which we sometimes talk about. If that can be brought about, then eventually, when we come to the end of this world recession, we can use those skills and the entrepreneurial risk-taking which my noble friend spoke of, and once again we can reach the top of the league.
It is vital that we should do so. In my lifetime we had the Royal Navy; that got us somewhere. We had an industrial pre-eminence which was unsurpassed; that got us somewhere. We had financial control which others did not have. We have none of those now. Those were assets which we inherited from our Victorian grandparents. They have gone. We must now depend on our own production, our own skills, our own sense of leadership and, if the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, will allow me to say so, our own optimism in order to generate the right climate for moving ahead.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, as someone who, like the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, lives in Cheshire, I am delighted to speak in what for me has been a most interesting and informative debate.
In preparing for the debate I naturally considered the extent to which the present state of the economy in
332
the North West of England differs from that elsewhere in the UK. With that in mind I looked at the latest regional seasonally adjusted employment figures. Although, if Northern Ireland is excluded, the percentage of unemployed in the workforce in the North West is marginally higher than anywhere except in the northern region, it is not substantially higher than in the country as a whole. With one or two exceptions, therefore, of which Barrow may well be one because of its dependence on one industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, reminded us in a memorable speech, the region does not appear to have a claim for exceptional treatment as a specially deprived region in that respect. In saying that, I do not for a moment want to minimise the seriousness of the employment position in the North West, as elsewhere in the country.
Similarly, I examined the regional trends survey published by the CBI earlier this month to see how far the views of employers in the North West as to manufacturing prospects differed from those of their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. Here I found that, together with employment, new orders and output have continued to fall over the past four months. However, in contrast, output is expected to rise over the coming four months for the first time since July 1989. Similarly, home and export prices are still falling, but unit costs appear to have risen by less than at any time since results were first collected in July 1988. That, for what it is worth, is the view of the CBI.
Overall, although the recession continues to have severe effects in North West England, as elsewhere in the Kingdom, it cannot fairly be claimed that economic conditions are appreciably worse in that region than in other parts of the country. Indeed, the more I thought about the matter the more I came to feel that any proposals which I might put forward in this debate aimed at improving the state of the economy in the North West would be much the same as those appropriate to the UK as a whole.
Against that background I would not recommend a return to a system of regional development grants. I do, however, support my party in advocating wider use of regional development agencies, with central government seed-corn funding being available for agencies where regions are in need of special assistance. That could be of help in the case of problems such as that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
North West England possesses a number of excellent universities and polytechnics which have great potential to assist in the economic development of the region. It is vitally important to strengthen still further the link between those higher education institutions and regional industry. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, mentioned education in that context. I am not sure whether the University of Keele can be treated geographically as one of those universities, but for some years until recently I had the privilege of being pro-chancellor and chairman of the council of that university and I can vouch for the excellent work that has been done in developing its science park for the benefit of the locality.

333
At a lower level of government, local authorities could also be of help if they were encouraged to exercise rather more flexibility in the field of economic development than they can at present.
Perhaps I may go on to say that I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Ezra said in initiating a short debate in your Lordships' House two weeks ago; namely, that what industry throughout Britain needs is not a consumer-led recovery but one which is investment led. That means the diversion of resources to stimulate industrial investment. That would not involve a substantial increase in public expenditure because it would provide additional tax revenue, reduce the pressure on social expenditure and, above all, ease the increasingly heavy burden of unemployment.
In that connection it is noteworthy that of the various proposals put forward by my noble friend on that occasion to reactivate the economy nationally, three in particular are also favoured by the CBI. The first is that industry should be given greater incentive to reinvest in new plant, machinery and research through an increase in investment allowances. Secondly, steps should be taken to stimulate investment in the infrastructure. That would provide sorely needed work for the construction industry. The latest indicators of future trends in construction activity which I have obtained from the Building Employers Confederation suggest a worsening of recession in the industry until at least the end of this year. That certainly applies in North West England.
Further investment in transport, especially rail transport, is urgently needed, not least in preparatory work for the freight links from the North West to Europe that are essential if the region is to take full advantage of the single European market and the opportunities offered by the changes in Eastern Europe.
Traditionally manufacturers have used the Channel and Humber ports for exports and more recently the developing facilities at Felixstowe and Harwich. However, routes to those ports are becoming increasingly congested. If the North West is not to become increasingly isolated on the periphery of the new Europe—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston—north/south and east/west access by road, rail and air must be improved as a matter of urgency. I have in mind, among other things, development of the region's airports, particularly Manchester, which was mentioned appropriately by the noble Lord, Lord Wade; and perhaps electrification of the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds rail line.
Thirdly—here I can best speak from my own experience—in my view there is need for greatly increased investment in training. I have said it all before but it bears repetition. The view of my party is that training and retraining invariably should be increased when unemployment rises. We think it important that the skill level of the workforce should be at least maintained against the tendency of unemployment to reduce it. I regret that, as I see it, the Government have recently decided to do just the opposite once again. Training and Enterprise
334
Councils are understandably concerned about how little they are to receive to finance both youth and employment training.
I cannot expect the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to respond on behalf of the Government to the various suggestions that I put forward. One at least must await the Chancellor's Budget Statement and another is an employment matter on which the noble Lord may not have up-to-date information, knowledgeable though I recall him to be on the subject of training from past exchanges across the Floor of the House. But I did not feel that such consideration should prevent me from placing my views on record, all the more so because every one of the proposals that I have made is highly relevant to the state of the economy in North West England.
In conclusion, let me simply say that from long experience in the chemical industry in the North West, I can vouch for the fact that the resourcefulness, skills and dependability, particularly in emergencies, of the working population in the region are second to none. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I add that during the war I served in a Lancashire regiment which was converted to tanks. In Normandy all the members of my tank crew came from a deprived area of Liverpool—Scotland Road. To my dying day I shall be thankful for all that they did for me then. What the people of North West England now need above all is the opportunity for their talents to be fully utilised once more.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I join with other speakers who have taken part in this discussion in expressing my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for initiating the debate. One tries to be objective in this matter but, while he painted some pictures of optimism, there is another side to the story. As someone who lives in the area, at the risk of being called miserable I feel I must highlight some of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, spoke about the history of the North West. He was right when he said that it has always had its innovators and produced a stable labour force. He then spoke of how a stable monetary system would benefit the area and of stable or reducing inflation. No one could cavil at that. People like to operate in a stable situation so that they can plan for the future. Ups and downs are of no use to anyone. He talked about cash flow and how sometimes big firms, if they did not produce money on the nail, could drive some of the smaller businesses out of existence. I say with some regret that in the past one of the industries most prone to that—I speak of the past and not the present—was the building industry with its subcontractors. I understand however that that situation has been speeded up and now almost eliminated.
The noble Lord referred to retraining. It is true that people may have to be retrained once, twice or even three times in a lifetime in order to have an opportunity to remain in something like full employment. But it is no use training people for jobs that are not there. There must be jobs for them to fill when the training is completed. The noble Lord, Lord

335
Wade, referred to the announcement by British Aerospace of cuts of 3,500 jobs. It has saddened me lately, when I go back to Manchester, to see the local television programmes. They used to show a balance sheet with, on the one side, jobs going out of existence and, on the other side, jobs being created. Sadly, it now seems to consist of jobs being lost. That is a statement of fact. I am not being miserable. That is happening. Jobs are going out of existence; 300 jobs, 400 jobs, 500 jobs, and even on occasion 1,000 jobs at a time are disappearing. One has learned to live with it, but it does not go down very well.
I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on one of his observations. He said that the development corporations have been an outstanding success. I do not expect the Minister to reply to that today. However, I was offered a post by Her Majesty's Government on the central Manchester development corporation but I chose not to serve because that is not my way of doing things. The only person to whom the industrial development corporations are answerable is the Secretary of State—whether it is good or a bad Secretary of State. In my view that is not the best way to impose accountability. In fact, in my opinion, the most important development corporation in the North-West area was the Trafford Park one, if we speak in terms of regeneration. For some reason that was never published, the Government, after about 18 months, removed the first chairman of the Trafford Park Development Corporation. It may have been for reasons of his inactivity. I do not know why he was moved, but obviously he was not a success.
I do not speak of the same kind of refurbishment as that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. Take the area of Manchester from which I come and from which I take my name. I was there last week opening a sheltered housing scheme for boys who had been in trouble in prison, run by the society known as Selcare. The area is an absolute industrial desert. It used to be known as the workhouse of the world. There were numerous engineering factories employing 2,000 to 4,000 people; they have gone. Chemical factories have gone. The only large pit in Manchester has gone. Sadly a dispute is taking place in what is probably the last engineering factory of any size in the area at GEC-Alsthom in the Openshaw plant. So that is the situation.
I understand the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. If I were a nasty piece of work I could say that Barrow will see what will happen and what has happened in the areas that I represented. It will see what happened in Consett and other parts of the country. I think that Consett is nearest to the Barrow situation. I do not want to see that happen. I believe that Barrow should be encouraged. If it needs funding or some preferential treatment, that should be given. It is not only the factories and the shipyards that will die; it is the communities which will die and the youngsters will leave. They will not tolerate the situation any more. They will leave Barrow and we will have almost a ghost town on our hands.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, considered that we ought to set Japan as our example because of how well
336
they accomplish things. But they do not operate on the same cricket field as we do. In 1977 or 1978 I had the privilege of going on a parliamentary visit from another place to Japan. We went to a shipyard at Kure. The shipyard had built so many enormous tankers of a quarter of a million tonnes or half a million tonnes that it was now putting them in mothballs. Being an engineer I asked, "What are you building now?". He replied, "We are building a huge quarter of a million tonne drilling rig". I said, "What will you do after that?". He said, "I don't know". I said, "This town lives off this shipyard. There is nothing else". The Japanese engineer said, "We'll not let the town die". The idea that the Japanese government do not become involved is nonsense; they do become involved.
Unfortunately I cannot develop the argument about whether our people compete on the same playing field as the Japanese in relation to contracts. We cannot debate that in the limited time available. However, I do not believe that anyone knows the Merseyside area better than my noble friend Lord Sefton. I know that he has criticisms of his own area but basically he is absolutely right in what he says about Liverpool. It now has a chance to recover. It has had a tremendous history of success. Like most other big cities it has had spasms which it could well have done without. That was not the fault of the ordinary Liverpudlian. But the city is on the way back. I believe that it will be very successful.
I was glad that my noble friend Lord Taylor made reference to the educational facilities in the North West. Many people do not know that UMIST, the universities of Manchester, and Salford, plus the polytechnics, make up the biggest educational centre of that type in Europe. It exports its learning through students all over the world.
We have to consider what is taking place. There is a malaise over certain areas of the North West that will not ease for a long time. Despite some of the nice things that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, with which I do not disagree, the situation is fast deteriorating. For instance, unemployment in the North West has now gone up to 322,000, an increase of between 60,000 and 70,000 in the past 12 months. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was right. The only two areas which show a bigger percentage increase are the North East itself and Northern Ireland. That situation continues.
Let us consider another statistic which indicates what is occurring. There has been a tremendous increase in the number of houses that people have lost. They have come before the courts because they have fallen behind with their interest payments. Such cases were up 50 per cent. by the middle of last year. I understand that the latest figures indicate a still accelerating trend. If that is happening on that scale, one cannot say that the area is doing particularly well; it is not.
In addition, a number of companies are going into liquidation. The figure quoted was about 1,900 last year, which is 40 companies a week. Although new companies balance the figure, the deficit remains. Let me cite some figures which indicate the enormity of

337
what is occurring. I believe that I am entitled to say something about Manchester itself since I am a Mancunian, although I was privileged to be a Member of Parliament in another place for the great city of Leeds, along with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph.
For instance, in the 12 months to December 1991 unemployment rose in the North West by 23.6 per cent., in Greater Manchester by 26.4 per cent. and in the city by 19.2 per cent. However, one of the appalling figures is that male unemployment in the centre of Manchester is over 20 per cent. Those people have to live with that situation. They see no signs of change. Some people may consider that things are getting better, but they are not.
I live in an area on the outside of the city of Manchester. It is known as Tameside. Part of it was formerly Denton Urban Council. It was one of the new metropolitan districts that was pulled together in the early 1970s in the government reorganisation. It consists of Ashton, Stalybridge, Denton, Audenshaw and all those areas. It is quite a stable, normal (what I call) mainly working class to slightly upper class area. They are very good, thrifty, hard-working people. The industrial workforce is superb. However, I have the Advertiser, which is the free paper delivered through the door. It is not a Labour Party paper by any means. Apart from the sad story of a girl who had been missing who was found dead in the reservoir, the headline states, "Evictions rocket" and the article reports that repossessions almost doubled in 1991. It states, "Borough's jobless up a third last year". There is no point in the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, because he was a European MP some years ago, stating that everything is all right. If one goes around that area and tells those people that they are doing well when they are losing homes and jobs, I know what they would say to the noble Lord. If he stands for election again as an MEP he would be on the loser's box not the winner's box.
I wish again to express my appreciation for the debate. I believe that the Government must take serious note of the situation. There are things that can he done. I hope that the Government will read today's debate and, if possible, bring forward some form of assistance for those areas that have real problems. It is a patchwork situation. Some areas are harder hit than others.
7.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, may I first congratulate my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton on obtaining this debate on what I am sure we all agree is a very important subject. I know that the noble Lord is an energetic campaigner for the North West of England. He has done his region a service and this House too in initiating today's debate.
I have had the pleasure of numerous visits to the North West of England. It is a region which can lay claim to be one of the most fascinating regions in the whole of Europe. It is a region that is steeped in history. I was slightly confused by as to whether the red rose worn by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is for Lancashire or for the Labour Party.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that it is for both, but it is a Lancashire red rose.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the area has been steeped in history since its time as the northern frontier of the Roman Empire in Britain, through the civil war of the 1640s and onward to the first industrial revolution. The region has for a long time been the cradle of entrepreneurial drive and talent. Personalities such as Arkwright, Crompton, Brindley and Francis Egerton, the third Duke of Bridgewater, spring to mind. Your Lordships will need no reminding that the Duke introduced inland navigation to England and with the aid of Brindley began the canal connecting Liverpool and Manchester. The region can claim some of the greatest scientific minds in history, notably the great British chemist John Dalton who produced the first table of atomic weights in 1803. There are many other "firsts" which one could claim for the North West region, including the first viable computer at Manchester University. I touch on this brief history to acknowledge the hard-earned experience of the region in economic matters, an experience which is relevant to its future.
Nowadays, the North West faces a highly competitive international market. The North West has shown itself capable of tackling challenges such as this in an energetic manner in the past and has the qualities to do so again now. Perhaps I may first put the North West in context within the United Kingdom. As my noble friend Lord Wade has noted, in both employment and output terms the North West is second only to the South East in size, having a gross domestic product in 1990 of £47 billion, equivalent to 10 per cent. of GDP. There are 2.4 million people in the region, representing 10.9 per cent. of the national total. Of those, nearly 661,000 are employed in manufacturing. That latter figure is significant. The region's manufacturing provides 27 per cent. of employment, compared to a national figure of 23 per cent. That is why the North West feels particularly strongly about manufacturing industry; a view which the Government acknowledge and accept.
There have of course been problems in the decline of the traditional industries such as textiles, coal and steel and, to a lesser extent, the ports. However, with that decline has come a diversification which has moved the region's industrial make-up closer to the national pattern than used to be the case. Within this diversification there is strength. The sectors represented range from engineering, the food industry, chemicals, the defence industries, motor vehicles and traditional industries such as textiles, footwear and clothing, furniture and so on. The services sector provides the region with the largest body of service industry employment of any region outside the South East.
Important banking, finance, insurance and business services are provided in the region which combine to make Manchester and Liverpool major centres of commerce, transport and education. Despite its past decline, Liverpool remains an important port and its recent performance since the abolition of the National Dock Labour Scheme has been most encouraging. As

339
the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, Manchester has more than 60 domestic, merchant and international banks represented there. Elsewhere in the region there are important ancillary activities including the Barclaycard Centre in Liverpool and, in Chester, the headquarters of North West Securities and St. Michael Financial Services.
From my previous position as Minister responsible for tourism I can vouch for the strength and diversity of tourism in the region. A spectrum ranging from the unsurpassed delights of Blackpool to the sublime beauty of the Lake District, with industrial heritage in projects such as the superb Albert Dock in Liverpool, the North West is a treasure trove of tourist attractions.
Despite the diversification—indeed, by way of a paradox, perhaps because of such diversifications—the North West has been and is affected by industrial change. For example, the contraction in the defence industries, to which noble Lords have rightly referred, is affecting Lancashire and Barrow-in-Furness in particular. The Government agree that it is important to retain skills and encourage diversification. The DTI was pleased to have assisted with the securing of European Commission perifra grants for projects in Preston and Barrow to do that. I know, too, that the companies affected are working with agencies to counsel those made redundant so that their skills might be retained for the region. That continuing cycle of industrial change has made its impact on the North West, as has the present recession. I regret that unemployment remains high; at 10.6 per cent. it is second only to the northern region. The region has its particularly prosperous areas, of course, in Cheshire and parts of Lancashire and Cumbria. However, that does not blind us to the overall situation. That is why the Government are so determined in their policy to defeat inflation and thereby create a stable economic environment in which companies can grow and prosper.
The people of the North are tough. I know from personal experience that the further north ones goes the tougher they become. They are very tough in Scotland. I am optimistic about the future of the North West. The asset side of the balance sheet is particularly strong. I have already referred to the diversity of the economy. That diversity now helps the region to ride the business cycle much better than it would have done with an over-dependence on the larger old-established industries. Many world renowned companies operate from the region. They do so because of the good supply of skilled and adaptable people available to work in their companies and the high quality infrastructure which services the region.
The people are the region's main asset. I referred to the hard experience gained from industrial life over the past 200 years. The people in the North West have good, marketable skills and a flexible, adaptable approach. That is evident from the very diversification to which I have referred. The infrastructure is very good. There is a well-developed motorway network and I have not forgotten that the M.6 around Preston was the first motorway to be opened in Britain.
340
North-South links are well developed and my colleagues in the Department of Transport are examining the issue of East-West links which would assist the region to serve the northern part of the European Community, as it is now and as it may be in the future, particularly the Baltic states. The rail network is comprehensive and is the subject of an intended uprating for the West Coast mainline which will benefit European travellers as well as national ones. Reference has been made to Manchester Airport, which is a major economic wealth generator in its own right. It is England's only category A gateway airport outside London and is recognised as Europe's fastest growing airport. It handled 11 million passengers last year and projects to double that by the turn of the century. Such development, complemented by airports at Liverpool and smaller airports at Blackpool, Carlisle and Barrow, are essential in attracting inward investment and in retaining the quality companies which the North West presently enjoys.
An additional and influential factor in such inward investment, both from overseas and from within the UK, is the quality of life in the North West region. I know from my travels that it is a beautiful region, embracing the Lake District through to the Cheshire Plain and the Lancashire Pennines through to the Wirral Peninsula. Historic towns such as Chester, Lancaster and Carlisle combine with the industrial heritage and popular culture in music and sport to make living in the region a real pleasure.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister mention the three major football teams of Manchester, Liverpool and Blackburn?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, indeed, and I should not like to forget Everton. No doubt the list is infinite.
Those assets will prove extremely attractive, I hope, to the members of the International Olympic Committee when they meet to consider the venue for the millenium games. I am delighted to say that since my noble friend Lord Wade asked a question at the beginning of the debate my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has announced that for the Manchester Olympic Bid £55 million is to be provided to pump prime the essential investments necessary to mount a winning effort. The games would be the north west's largest ever inward investment, providing 5,000 jobs as a permanent basis and an economic stimulus which would carry the region forward for many years. I know that the whole House will welcome that announcement and will congratulate my right honourable friend.
The Government recognise though that these strengths are essential to meet the challenges that face the region today. The region's problems have arisen in the main from the scale and speed of the adjustments which it has had to make to its economic base. Although much has been done, a number of challenges remain. I have referred to the high level of unemployment and it is compounded by outward migration of the younger and perhaps more enterprising individuals. The industry infrastructure still contains too many scars from the 19th century,

341
together with a growing shortage of suitable sites for the inward investor. The Government have recognised the issue of urban decay and in the two major conurbations and the numerous industrial towns in the region they are doing something about that, through their urban development and city challenge programmes and the activities of the DTI's own task forces. There is a need to retain and develop the skills of its workforce more rapidly, particularly in the face of the declining school-leaving population.
The region's 14 Training and Enterprise Councils are busy working on that vital issue. The noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Rochester, spoke at length about training and retraining. They also spoke about partnership, which is so fundamental to the TECs. It is a partnership between the private sector, government, business, employers and potential employees so that they can find work in the long term.
As noble Lords would expect, the Department of Trade and Industry takes a close interest in the performance of the North West economy. After all, the national economy is composed of regional economies. Their performance affects not only those who live there but the nation as a whole. One suspects that there are a number of contributory factors affecting the performance of North West manufacturing touching on size, industrial make-up and industrial inheritance. It is for reasons like these that much of the North West qualifies as an assisted area for DTI purposes, and as an Objective 2 region for European funding.
The DTI spends many millions of pounds on assistance to industry and commerce in the North West. I am sure that your Lordships will be familiar with the Enterprise Initiative, which covers support in the fields of financial assistance for jobs, exports, the consultancy initiatives and technology schemes. Your Lordships may be interested to note that since 1984, when regional policy was last reviewed, 63 per cent. of all employees in the North West live in areas qualifying as assisted. In the intervening years, around £220 million has been offered on nearly 2,000 projects with an investment value of £1.78 billion and projected to create nearly 33,000 new jobs and safeguard more than 23,000 jobs. The regional development grant scheme, which is now closed, made offers valued at £246 million and its replacement, the regional enterprise grant, has so far made offers totalling £10 million, representing a total investment of £65 million.
The consultancy initiative has been particularly successful in the North West, with applications running far beyond the region's economic weight. In the four years since January 1988, when the initiative was launched, more than 13,000 applications for consultancy were received; 10,000 have proceeded and 6,000 of those are already complete. On export promotion, the regional office has an active client base of over 3,500 companies and I am pleased to say that the single European market campaign has received a very positive reaction in the region.
The department does not operate alone of course. Colleagues in the Department of the Environment spend considerable sums of money through the urban
342
programme and the urban development corporations. The departments co-operate together in the city action teams which are working in Manchester, Salford and Liverpool and in the task forces, of which there is currently one in Moss Side/Hulme in Manchester, in the Granby-Toxteth area of Liverpool and more recently in the Wirral. In addition to that, the Cumbria action tam has been operating since the summer of last year when a package of assistance for Barrow-in-Furness and West Cumbria was announced in recognition of substantial projected job losses derived from their dependence on a dominant single industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, with his great knowledge and experience of the area, referred with great feeling to the problems of that town. I am glad to be able to refer to the Government's activity in that area to assist Barrow to deal with its problems. Of course, that assistance is kept under review.
More important than central government activities are the actions of the people in the North West. It was a delight to listen to my noble friend Lord Joseph, who was such a distinguished Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Education. It was enlightening to hear his restatement of the importance of the marketplace, enterprise and the entrepreneur. It was a delight also to listen to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls who enthused us with his optimism for the North West gained from his knowledge as a Euro MP. He is correct to highlight the success of inward investment in the North West.
I am sure noble Lords will agree that without their own will to succeed, the provision of central government support can achieve little. One of the reasons I am so optimistic about the North West's future is its ability to help itself. Its residents have an energy and commitment to their region second to none. My noble friend Lord Wade has demonstrated that this afternoon and on many other occasions. So, too, have noble Lords who have participated in this debate.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, is so depressed but I hope that he has taken note of what everybody else has said and will be duly encouraged. I am encouraged, for example, by the activities of 31 of the region's top businessmen who have formed themselves into a grouping called the business leadership team. Many billions of pounds of turnover is represented by that team, which is presently led by the noble Duke, the Duke of Westminster. Their co-operative efforts and joint vision of the North West's future offer real evidence to encourage us. For these groupings represent the people of the North West, who themselves provide the main constituent of successful recovery and continued growth. The other ingredients are present in the infrastructure, the quality of life, and much hard-earned experience. I am sure that that mixture of talents and assets will provide a prosperous future for this remarkable region. I thank my noble friend Lord Wade for the opportunity which he has given us this evening.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I was fascinated by the various views expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, reminds me that I used to go trotting racing in Droylsden in the 1950s but unfortunately, that is no more.
Clearly, the key to success in the North West, as in most economies, is the partnership to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred, and gaining the necessary investment for the new opportunities which will be available. That is more likely to happen if there is enthusiasm, drive and encouragement rather than a blackening of an area which, I believe, is one of great opportunity.
We have not had an opportunity to refer to the rural economy so perhaps noble Lords will bear with me while I read an old Cheshire rhyme, which goes thus:
"A Cheshire man went o'er to Spain
To trade and merchandise.
When he arrived across the Main
A Spaniard he espies
'Thou Cheshire man' quoth he 'look here
These fruits and spices fine
Our country yields these twice a year
Thou hast not such in thine.
The Cheshire man then sought the hold
Thence brought a Cheshire cheese.
'You Spanish dog, look here' saith he
You have not such as these:
Your land produces twice a year
Spices and fruits you say
But such as in my hand I bear
Our land yields twice a day"'.
I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Cheques Bill
7.56 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Second Time. The aim of the Bill makes it an ideal candidate for the Private Bill procedure. It fits in extremely well with what was intended when the Private Bill procedure was introduced into our legislature.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to regularise by statute a matter which almost everyone thought was already the case and for decades the system has operated on that basis. I had always thought that by crossing the cheque and putting on it "by order" or "not transferable", I was making absolutely certain that the money could be credited only to the named payee and that if by some manoeuvre the money was paid into somebody else's account I could automatically be compensated by whoever had allowed that to happen at the receiving bank. I always thought and felt quite happy about that, and I believe that that is the case as regards most people.
Many people think that any problem can be overcome by writing "by order" and then writing "not transferable." That certainly gave one some protection if one had to claim compensation but it did not give the protection which this Bill if enacted will give. At present, there is no obligation on banks to check
344
the identity of a person paying in a cheque or to ensure that the signature on the back of an endorsed cheque is genuine. By and large that is done to the best of their ability but there is no obligation and in certain circumstances banks can resist any claims for compensation for the damage done.
The aim of the Bill is to establish a sure means of making cheques non-transferable by giving legal status to the words "account payee" on the face of the cheque. If "account payee" is shown on the cheque, under the Bill that will be sufficient to ensure that the receiving bank takes real trouble to check that the person presenting it is the one entitled to it. If by some carelessness the bank allows it to go through, the bank will be liable to pay compensation and the Bill ensures that there will be little trouble about that.
Out of fairness to the bank, the Bill also makes clear that if by some clever manoeuvring by somebody a cheque is paid into the wrong account and the bank can prove to a court that it has not been negligent and the mistake was not caused through its carelessness or misdemeanour, then it would not pay the full extent of compensation. The main purpose of the Bill is that once passed, when "account payee" appears on a cheque, the bank will be under an obligation to take special steps to ensure that the name on the cheque is the account to which the money is paid.
I do not believe that we need to spend too much time on the matter. The Bill simply reinforces by statute something that most of us thought had always been the situation in any case. It therefore seems to be the commonsense thing to do. Once the Bill is passed, if a cheque crossed "account payee" is paid into the wrong account, the collecting bank will have to compensate the rightful owner, except in the circumstances I have already explained; that is, if it can show beyond peradventure to a court that it had not been negligent and that somebody had cleverly been able to get round the statute. The bank will then have some kind of defence.
I could stretch out the arguments by giving all kinds of detail but that has already been done. Outside the Chamber the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is a friend of mine and I know his views. Inside the House he must be, "the noble Lord", but outside he is my friend. I have already obtained his views. I can say to the House—I have no doubt that he will reinforce it—that on this issue we are as one and there is no problem.
Another point which should be impressive is that the Consumers' Association and the British Bankers Association jointly agree that the Bill is satisfactory and that its proposals are right. The Building Societies Association, the Law Society and even the Flying Squad of the Metropolitan Police see the Bill as satisfactory. That means that we need not spend too much time on the detail.
I anticipate that noble Lords will give the Bill a Second Reading and I hope that it has a speedy passage through all stages. It is timely to do that. In 1989 there were £19 million worth of cheques presented fraudulently; by 1990 that figure had increased to £34 million. That is a solid pound-note

345
reason for doing all we can to straighten the problem out. It is with confidence therefore that I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
8 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls on what he said in introducing the Bill to your Lordships' House. I am envious of him; it is not everybody who gets the chance to introduce a Bill which will amend the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.
There is nothing more I can add. We are aware how complicated the law on cheques is. I hope that the Bill will do exactly what the noble Lord said; that is, that it will make the law do what we all thought it did. I support it most strongly for myself and my noble friends.
There is nothing controversial in the Bill. I hope that time will be found between now and whenever the election is held to place it on the statute book. Without wearing my usual cynical hat, it is one of the more useful provisions that we have introduced in recent years. I hope that time will be found to place it on the statute book in the next few weeks. I support it most strongly.
8.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, ever wore a cynical hat. I too join in supporting the Bill and confirm that the Government endorse it. I join my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls in saying that I found the Bill to be somewhat educational. I had always thought that the various scribblings one made on a cheque had some effect, particularly the rather severe amount of scribbling required by the Inland Revenue on cheques made out in its favour. It is rather interesting to be disabused of that idea.
The Bill implements a policy to which the Government are already committed. The Jack Committee recommended that we sort out the legal basis of the various crossings on cheques and the term "account payee" to reduce the scope of fraudulent endorsements. The Government undertook to do that in the White Paper published in March 1990.
There are a number of other measures in the White Paper but it has not proved possible to find time to accommodate them in the Government's legislative programme. The Bill deals with the most pressing problem most effectively. I therefore strongly recommend that the House accepts the Bill as it stands and assists its speedy passage through to Royal Assent.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Access to Neighbouring Land Bill [H.L.]
8.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Terms and conditions of access orders]:
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved the Amendment:
Page 3, leave out lines 37 to 45 and insert—
("( ) An access order may also impose terms and conditions—

(a) requiring the applicant to pay, or to secure that such person connected with him as may be specified in the order pays, compensation for—

(i) any loss, damage or injury, or

(ii) any substantial loss of privacy or other substantial inconvenience, which will, or might, be caused to the respondent or any other person by reason of the entry authorised by the order;

(b) requiring the applicant to secure that he, or such person connected with him as may be specified in the order, is insured against any such risks as may be so specified; or

(c) requiring such a record to be made of the condition of the servient land, or of such part of it as may be so specified, as the court may consider expedient with a view to facilitating the determination of any question that may arise concerning damage to that land.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of the amendment is to extend the scope of the compensation provisions in the Bill so as to improve payment to the respondent of compensation for substantial loss of privacy or other substantial inconvenience. At the same time it improves the drafting of Clause 2 of the Bill.
The amendment provides for a new subsection to replace paragraphs (e) and (f) in Clause 2(3) and the concluding words of that subsection. That improves the drafting because those provisions do not fit very well under the opening words of Clause 2(3). They are not terms and conditions which may be imposed under subsection (2); that is, for the purpose of avoiding or restricting loss, damage, inconvenience and so forth.
The House will recall that at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—supported by my noble friend Lord Coleraine and the noble Lord, Lord Monson—argued strongly for the inclusion of a provision in the Bill for the payment of compensation,
"where the court finds that, despite all the terms and conditions that it can impose, there will still be a loss of privacy and inconvenience to the person who is the subject of the order through no fault of his at all".—[Official Report, 13/2/92; col. 888.]
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave an undertaking that he and I would consider the matter. Following further discussion of the question in the interval since Committee stage, it now seems to me to be right—and I believe that my noble and learned friend agrees—that the respondent who suffers, or who is likely to suffer, substantial inconvenience should be compensated.
It is not intended to permit the courts to award compensation for inconvenience and loss of privacy in all cases. I would be worried if respondents were led to expect to be paid a sum of money under this head in every case. There are degrees of inconvenience and of

347
loss of privacy. Where the inconvenience or loss of privacy caused by the entry is likely to be sufficiently substantial, it would be an appropriate matter for compensation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for raising the matter in the first place and for pursuing it with his customary courtesy and vigour.
It may be helpful for me to mention other changes which will be made by the amendment. Paragraph (a) now provides the alternative of the securing of payment by the applicant rather than the simple payment by him. The point is that the applicant may be, relatively speaking, a man of straw; for example, a building contractor who is handling the business with the landowner. It is necessary to be sure that the conditions as to payment and insurance are effective. Paragraph (b), which deals with insurance, is also amended so that the applicant must secure insurance. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, was good enough to ascribe the adjective "courteous" to me. I want to say at once that it is I who have been the recipient of courtesy and understanding both from him and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I tried to wring the hearts of Members of the Committee when I asked them to imagine the occupant of a little house treasuring his garden and hoping so much that he would be able to enjoy it when the occasional sun shone upon this land of ours, only to find that an order had been made which enabled builders to come onto his premises, occupy his garden during working hours, bring machinery there, and ruin his privacy and certainly his convenience in trying to enjoy that garden.
I saw at once that the noble Lord, Lord Murton, was moved by that, as one would expect him to be. I found that, even in the heart of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, which is always a substantial and warm one, I had struck a chord of sympathy. He has been courteous enough to write to me in the intervening period and to allow me to see him in order that suitable words might be put into the Bill so that not only are loss of privacy and convenience, if substantial, remedied to some extent by the terms and conditions which the court can impose by an earlier subsection of this clause, but also if inconvenience or loss of privacy is substantial, compensation can be paid.
I was perfectly satisfied with the wording that merely altered the subsection to cover that point. I readily recognise that the opportunity has been so sensibly taken of redrawing the whole of the subsection in order to make it a very much better and worthwhile clause. I very much hope that when this Bill goes elsewhere, as it certainly will do at an early stage, it will have the sympathy of the other House as a Bill which looks after the little man whom I mentioned to your Lordships at Committee stage.
Noble Lords may have noticed that I am being rather more long-winded than I normally am. The reason is that I was hoping that a colleague of mine would find her way to the Front Bench in time for the
348
next matter which your Lordships may be dealing with. However, I believe that I have taxed the patience of noble Lords quite sufficiently. Therefore, I close with a repetition of my words of appreciation to the noble Lord and to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, as well as to those who supported me on the previous occasion. In those words of thanks I naturally include my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I would like to help the noble Lord opposite and join with him in welcoming this amendment moved by my noble friend. He also warmed my heart in Committee, as he knows, especially because the amendment to which he was speaking when he drew the Committee's attention to the point which has now been rectified, was an amendment which I would have felt bound to oppose. I was delighted to find that he did not wish to speak to the amendment, but was raising the point which we are now considering.
The Law Commission was not very anxious that compensation should be allowed in these cases. Its reason was that it wished that the courts should not be troubled with small claims for small matters of inconvenience. That was a matter which my noble friend touched on in introducing his amendment. I go along with that. I hope that the use of the word "substantial" in relation to loss of privacy or other substantial inconvenience, will have the effect of providing that the inconvenience which one might call a "£100 inconvenience" is not compensated, but that the courts will give compensation for what I might call a "£500 inconvenience". I hope that that will be the result of this amendment.
8.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, on behalf of the Government I support this amendment very much indeed. I believe that we have managed to achieve, on the one hand, the kind of protection for people suffering inconvenience which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wished to achieve, and, on the other hand, at the same time we have managed to avoid the difficulty which moved the Law Commission to suggest that inconvenience should not be taken into account in that the courts might be faced with rather small claims. The advice that we have from parliamentary counsel is that the use of the word "substantial" might achieve that. I believe that it has. I would like to thank my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the help that they have given me in reaching this extremely sensible solution. I hope that the Bill will proceed quite quickly through its remaining stages.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Offshore Safety (Protection Against Victimisation) Bill [H.L.]
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: 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 Turner of Camden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale) in the Chair.]
Clause [Unfair dismissal of employees]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater) moved the amendment:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new Clause:
Protection against victimization
(".—(1) In relation to an offshore employee, the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 shall each have effect as if—

(a) the purposes specified in section 146(1) of the 1992 Act (action short of dismissal on grounds related to union membership or activities) included preventing or deterring him from carrying out any relevant functions, or penalising him for doing so; and

(b) the reasons specified in section 152(1) of the 1992 Act (dismissal on grounds related to union membership or activities) included the reason that he had carried out, or proposed to carry out, any such functions.

(2) In this section—
"offshore employee" means an employee (within the meaning of the 1978 Act) who is or was employed on an offshore installation;
"offshore installation" means any installation which is an offshore installation within the meaning of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971, or is to be taken to be an installation for the purposes of sections 21 to 23 of the Petroleum Act 1987;
"relevant functions", in relation to an offshore employee, means any functions conferred on him, as a safety representative or as a member of a safety committee—

(a) by the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989; or

(b) by any corresponding regulations made under Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

(3) In relation to any time before the commencement of the 1992 Act, subsection (1) above shall have effect as if—

(a) the reference to that Act were omitted; and

(b) the references to sections 146(1) and 152(1) of that Act were references to sections 23(1) and 58(1) respectively of the 1978 Act.")

The noble Viscount said: I said during Second Reading debate on this important Bill brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that, with her agreement, the Government would seek to bring forward for consideration in Committee amendments to ensure that the Bill properly achieves its intended purpose; that is, to implement recommendation 30 of the Cullen Report on the Piper Alpha disaster, which stated:
350
"Safety representatives should be protected against victimisation by a provision similar to Section 58(1) (b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978".
The Government, as I have previously made clear, fully accept that recommendation, as they do all the recommendations made in Lord Cullen's report.
In the event, it transpires that the necessary changes to the noble Baroness's Bill can be incorporated in just a single amendment—admittedly a substantial one —and it is this which is now before us. Members of the Committee will see that the amendment refers to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That Act has not yet reached the statute book but is passing through its parliamentary stages and is expected to receive Royal Assent next month.
It will, inter alia, repeal those aspects of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 to which the Cullen Report refers and replace them with new provisions of equivalent effect. Clearly, therefore, the 1992 Act is the one to which this Bill should relate —although subsection (3) of the new clause does allow for the eventuality that this Bill may become law before the 1992 Act, during which period the 1978 Act will still contain the appropriate legislation.
The amendment aims to deal with a number of technical and other points in the Bill as published. It would do this by leaving out Clause 1 of the Bill—the clause which contains the Bill's substantive provisions —and replacing it with a new one.
The overall effect of subsection (1) (b) of the proposed new clause would be to provide that the dismissal of an offshore employee shall be regarded as unfair if the reason, or the principal reason, for it was that he had carried out, or proposed to carry out, any functions conferred on him as a safety representative or as a member of a safety committee. Similarly, the overall effect of subsection (1) (a) is to give an offshore employee the right not to have action short of dismissal taken against him for the purpose of preventing him or deterring him from carrying out any functions conferred on him as a safety representative or as a member of a safety committee or penalising him for so doing.
I should like to comment briefly on some of the principal ways in which the new clause proposed in the amendment differs from Clause 1 of the Bill as published.
First, as I have mentioned, the amendment provides protection not only from dismissal but also from action short of dismissal, which is of course another form which victimisation can take. It does this by referring not only to Section 152(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which will replace Section 58(1) of the 1978 Act concerning dismissal on grounds related to union membership or activities, but also to Section 146(1) of the 1992 Act, which will replace Section 23(1) of the 1978 Act concerning action short of dismissal on the same grounds.
Where an industrial tribunal upholds an employee's complaint of action short of dismissal, it will make a declaration to that effect. There is no upper limit on the amount of compensation which may be awarded. The tribunal may award such compensation

351
as it considers appropriate having regard to the infringement of the employee's rights and any consequent loss suffered by the employee.
Secondly, although Lord Cullen's recommendation mentioned only safety representatives, and this is reflected in the Bill as published, the amendment extends the same protection to all members of safety committees, and where they are performing any of their functions.
Lastly, by referring directly to Section 152(1) of the 1992 Act (equivalent to Section 58(1) of the 1978 Act), the amendment ensures that no qualifying period of employment or upper age limit applies in the case of an offshore employee who was dismissed because he had carried out, or proposed to carry out, any functions conferred on him as a safety representative or as a member of a safety committee. Furthermore, an offshore employee dismissed in such circumstances could qualify for the higher levels of compensation, including the special award of compensation, currently available in cases of unfair dismissal on grounds related to trade union membership or activities, and for interim relief.
The purpose of the amendment, then, is to fulfil our commitment to implement Lord Cullen's recommendation 30. That is what I undertook to do when we debated the Bill at Second Reading. Although, in line with Lord Cullen's recommendation, the amendment restricts its ambit to safety representatives and other members of safety committees, I am satisfied that in practical terms the Bill, if our amendment is accepted, would provide very real protection for everyone working offshore. Employees have a statutory right to elect safety representatives and I am advised that it is the universal practice that every manned offshore installation already has in place a safety committee. Accordingly, any employee who had a concern about health and safety would have the opportunity to voice his concern to a safety representative and through him to the safety committee, as the procedures intended. Members of the committee could then take action safe in the knowledge that they enjoyed the protection given by these provisions.
Given the goodwill which exists on all sides of the Committee towards the Bill brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I hope that the Committee will accept the Government's amendment as fulfilling the commitment I gave at Second Reading to bring forward provisions to ensure that the Bill fully achieves the result Lord Cullen proposed. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that explanation of the amendment which in my view substantially improves the Bill on a number of counts. I am grateful for the introduction of the concept of action short of dismissal which, when we debated the Bill at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, indicated that we should want to see written into the Bill when it eventually reached the statute book.
I am grateful also for the comments made in regard to the amounts of compensation—there are to be no upper limits on compensation—and for the
352
Government's intention to fulfil the recommendations of Lord Cullen in item 30 of the second part of his report.
There are of course certain aspects of my Bill which do not appear if the amendments are accepted by the Committee. In particular the Bill is limited to safety representatives and members of safety committees. That is in line with what Lord Cullen proposes. We shall probably have to wait for other legislation at a later date to give much more widespread protection to individual members working on the oil rigs as a whole. In the meantime this Bill goes a considerable way to meeting the objections that we had when the original Offshore Safety Bill was before your Lordships. I very much welcome those improvements.
Lord Rochester: There is very little left for me to say. At Second Reading I expressed the hope that as the Bill enabled the Government to deal with the one recommendation in Lord Cullen's report—namely, that of victimisation—which was not included in the Government's own Offshore Safety Bill, the noble Viscount would welcome the opportunity to legislate on that matter. In fulfilling that hope he, in turn, expressed the wish that we should all feel able to co-operate in finding an appropriate way to implement the findings of Lord Cullen in this respect. The noble Viscount has now provided us with an amendment to Clause 1 which enables us to achieve that joint aim.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, I too welcome the fact that the amendment deals not only with the question of dismissal but also with action short of dismissal. I also welcome the fact that it covers both safety committee representatives and members of safety committees. Therefore from these Benches I should like to thank the Minister for having done that, and again I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on her initiative in bringing forward this Bill.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: This is a very notable occasion. It is an employment matter on which the Committee seems to be united. On these Benches we can take great pleasure in the general support that the Government have given. I must congratulate my noble friend on piloting through to the statute book the first proposal from this side of the House that has seen favour with the Government since 1980. The only moral I can draw from that is that we should have done a lot better making our arguments from the Back Benches, as my noble friend has done with this Bill. Of course we welcome part of the amendment: the addition of "action short of dismissal", which I suppose in a sense goes beyond Cullen but is a logical result of the argument.
There are two matters on which, without in any way wishing to hold up the Bill, I should like to ask the Minister for some clarification. The first relates to the Community framework directive and the second relates to the position of trade unions and the evidence given by the unions, most notably by MSF, which gave strong evidence to the Cullen inquiry. On the framework of that directive, the Minister has taken out of the Bill, as I suspected he might, the right of the

353
individual worker, for example, to approach the safety inspectorate. I quite understand why he has done that. On the logic of Cullen—reading the text as it were —it only goes as wide as safety committees and safety representatives. On the other hand the framework to that directive on safety has to be put into effect by the end of 1993. One wonders whether it will be done through a single Bill or a single set of regulations. Different industries may need slightly different treatment. I wonder why the Government have taken the individual workers out completely when in the framework directive there is a suggestion in Article 8—it is more than a suggestion—that the individual worker should have a right to stop work and, secondly, in Article 11, that he should have the right to approach the inspectorate.
However, that is less important than my second point. The Bill will now go forward as one limited to safety representatives and members of safety committees. That is welcome. But the Bill does not refer only to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974—the Minister did not deal with the difference between his amendment and the Bill—and the safety representatives under that Act and under the regulations of 1977. In a slightly strange subsection in what will be Clause 1(2) (a) and (b) the Bill defines "relevant functions" by reference to the functions of a safety committee or representative under the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989 or under Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which is where we normally find health and safety at work representatives.
In my noble friend's Bill they were limited to the 1974 design. When one looks at them one sees that there is only one major difference between the 1989 regulations and the 1974–77 regulations. Under the latter, the safety representatives emerge from the machinery of recognised trade unions, whereas under the 1989 regulations the constituencies for election of safety representatives are organised under statutory rights by the management. This is a genuine question. Can the Minister tell those who will have to operate what will undoubtedly become the Act in this form when they can expect to see the 1989 regulations operating and when they will see the 1974 regulations operating, as there is an alternative? Secondly, when do we expect the review of the 1989 regulations to be completed? They are under review now, as has been stated by the Health and Safety Commission.
The second point is important because in paragraphs 21.84 and 21.85 of Chapter 21 of the Cullen Report Lord Cullen makes it absolutely clear that the only reason he is not recommending the changeover from the 1989 regulations to the 1974/77 apparatus is that those regulations are under review. He goes as near as he can to accepting the argument of the unions, especially of MSF, that the offshore committees should be organised in the same way as the others. It may be that the Government are simply saying that they prefer to have the 1989 regulations. In that case it is rather odd to find the alternative in the amendment.
354
I am genuinely seeking information as much as expressing doubt on our part as to whether we would have drafted it in this way. I am seeking information from the Minister either at this stage or on Report. We are happy to support the Bill in its amended form as it will be when the amendment goes through.
Viscount Ullswater: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for the welcome that she gave to this amendment. I believe, and I think the noble Baroness accepts, that it substantially improves the Bill as originally drafted. She commented about restricting it to the rather narrow framework set by Lord Cullen in his recommendation. I sought to outline in my opening remarks that we also intended that that should be the case. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has accepted it now that I have acceded to his request about implementing the recommendation as I suggested that I should. Having said that, I believe that the amendment tabled tonight actually improves on the recommendation. So not only have we taken the recommendation but we have sought to improve it as well, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, also accepted. I am glad to think that the noble Lord feels that we are at last united. It is a very nice feeling to have. On such an important Bill as this I am pleased that he accedes to it because I do not believe that he has acceded to many of the recommendations put forward from this side of the House since 1980.
The noble Lord asked me one or two questions which I shall do my best to answer. His first question related to the Community framework directive. He rightly indicated that that should be implemented by the end of 1992; if that date is wrong I shall seek to correct it. The framework directive provisions relating to victimisation go considerably wider than Recommendation No. 30 of the Cullen Report. It has always been our intention to extend implementing measures offshore. This would meet Lord Cullen's concerns and indeed go beyond his recommendation providing more comprehensive coverage. We shall have to consider, in the light of what happens to this Bill, how to deal with the wider provisions, but my current understanding is that our proposals would be likely to overtake any provisions in operation on the lines of this Bill which could then be repealed.
The noble Lord also asked me why there were two provisions in the amendment regarding relevant functions. First, the 1989 regulations are, as he rightly suggested, being reviewed at this moment. That review should be completed by the spring of 1993. The amendments to the 1989 regulations would need to be made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act because the Offshore Safety Bill will make these relevant statutory provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The 1977 regulations do not apply offshore and the Bill would have no effect if it referred to them. This is technical point but I hope that it clears up some of the points at issue.
I believe that we have done what we suggested we should do. I am extremely pleased that we have had the co-operation of the noble Baroness. I understand

355
that the clause that we have sought to include has perhaps rather changed the face of her original Bill but I believe that it has improved it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendment.

Polish Visitors: Visas
8.40 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now abolish the visa requirement for Polish citizens visiting the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will know that I have raised the matter of visas for Polish citizens on many occasions over the past two years, as have other Members of the House; notably, my noble friend Lady Cox, who unfortunately cannot be present this evening, and my noble friend Lord Bethel. My noble friend is also unable to be present but he has tabled a Motion which is still on the "No Day Named" list in the Minutes of Proceedings. He has asked me to say on his behalf that he very much hopes for a favourable reply from Her Majesty's Government so that he will be able to withdraw his Motion from the list.
During the past two years or so visas for Polish citizens have been abolished for all European countries except, I understand, Albania and Turkey. We keep strange company in the matter. Before I proceed any further, I must say, with all the emphasis that I can command, that the Polish community in Britain is deeply upset by the situation which has been going on for far too long. The continuation of that situation is having—and I am not exaggerating —a devastating effect on our relations with Poland. Even if it is ended, a great deal of damage has already been done. It should be ended now.
What are the reasons given for the continuing insistence on visas? First, it is said that a very large number of Poles continue to wish to come to this country. I must ask Her Majesty's Government and my noble friend the Minister: do they really find that so surprising? The Polish community in this country is computed as a minimum of 150,000 people of Polish blood who hold British citizenship. To those one must add the large number of people who are of mixed Polish and British parentage and those who, like myself, are British but married to Poles. Beyond those immediate categories of people, I must add that Polish people have not been living in a kind of vacuum or ghetto for the past 45 years. They have made a large number of British friends.
That large group of people—that is, Poles and those connected with them—do not only have friends and relations here and in Britain; they have families in Poland. I should have thought that it was the least surprising thing in the world to say that members of those families want to come here and visit. There are families living on both sides of what we used to call the Iron Curtain. Of course, the communists in the heyday
356
of their power thought it unreasonable that families should wish to get together. I am quite sure that my noble friend the Minister does not take that view. But I have to say that appearances are against Her Majesty's Government on the matter.
I hesitated very much before coming to the question of our consulate in Warsaw. I realise that there are people working there who have a most arduous and disagreeable job to do. However, I have to say that the stories of harassment of Polish people, whose only crime is to wish to come here to visit their families and friends, are too numerous to be ignored. I can only suppose that it is the rules themselves which give rise to that harassment. I know personally of a mother who was refused a visa to come to visit her daughter for two weeks at Christmas. There are other stories too numerous to repeat.
I can sum up by telling your Lordships of a comment of a Polish lady who applied for a visa. She said that she had been interrogated by the Gestapo and the KGB but that she had never been reduced to tears except at the British Consulate in Warsaw. I ask your Lordships: what are we doing in this business? The fact that such stories are going the rounds—I can assure noble Lords that they are—is something that I believe Her Majesty's Government should take a great deal more seriously than they appear to have done so far.
I should like to comment on two further reasons given by the Home Office for the continuation of the visa regime. The first is that many visas are refused, or applications withdrawn, because in most cases visa officers suspect that the applicants intended to take or seek employment. The second reason, which follows on from that, is that if those applicants were to travel all the way here and then be turned back and deported home, it would be a great deal worse for all concerned.
My perception is—and I am not alone in this—that far fewer Poles are coming here to earn hard currency than was the case four or five years ago. There are two reasons for that. First, it was always the most enterprising people who came here to work, but those people now have more to occupy them at home; they can make money there. Secondly, Germany, France, Denmark and the other countries of the EC are much easier to reach. People can travel there freely. Therefore, why go through all the hassle and expense of air tickets, ship fares, and so on—not to speak of visas—when they can just get into the car and drive to their destination?
Again, from personal experience, I must tell your Lordships that anyone who is determined to come here to work will succeed, while people visiting their relations may not do so. That is so because of the very nature of bureaucratic inquiry. Often people are refused visas to see their families for what normal people would consider to be silly reasons; for example, that they have forgotten to bring their bank statements with them, they do not have a bank account—well, we all have aunts and grandmothers who can do that—or they have got into a muddle and given the wrong address over here. That is more easy to do than some people may think, given how different the Polish and English languages are from each other.

357
However, those who are determined to work will make sure that they have everything in order. Addresses, references and bank accounts will present no problem to them. They are much tidier and much easier for officials to process. That type of thing will always happen; it is part of life.
As for the convenience of ensuring that people are processed in Poland before their journeys, all I can say is that I personally know of two cases where Polish men were stopped at Heathrow—visas and all. One happened to be my father-in-law. He is a 70 year-old gentleman and a veteran of the Polish Home Army. He was stopped and held for two hours while an interpreter who could speak Polish was found. That happened despite his visa and an invitation that I had signed. He was coming to stay with my wife and myself for 10 days in order to attend his granddaughter's christening.
Incidentally, with the number of Poles coming into Heathrow I cannot understand why it should take two hours to find an interpreter. There must be a large number of people in Britain who are bilingual in Polish and English who could be employed as interpreters at Heathrow and other airports where a large number of Poles come into the country. Moreover, I have to say from personal knowledge that anyone less likely to be coming here to work on a building site or as a waiter at Macdonalds than my father-in-law would be hard to imagine. So why was he stopped?
Another person that I know came here for a short holiday to see London armed with £800, a visa and a hotel booking. I know for a fact that he did not intend to seek work; he just came here for a holiday. He gave officials the wrong reference and was imprisoned at Heathrow for 36 hours. After that, he went back to Poland in disgust before they could deport him.
The fact is that people are stopped and put through the third degree at Heathrow and, I presume, elsewhere. So I cannot understand why it is said that a visa is enough and that possession of one will guarantee, or nearly guarantee, entry. Anyone who has seen the queues at Heathrow, and at other large airports, could not imagine for one moment that a visa by itself is anything like enough.
When I look at the map of Europe, I cannot see a country which has closer ties with Britain than Poland. The fact that those ties are comparatively recent makes them stronger if anything. I believe that we have more potential good will in that country than in any of our EC partners. At present we are stretching good will to the limit and risk losing what is probably one of the only real friends that we have in Europe.
There is also a market of 40 million people to consider. British traders ought to be and are entering the Polish market, but contact between businesses is made difficult by the visa regime which restricts the ease with which Polish businessmen can travel here. When I was in Poland last September, I noticed goods and services from almost every country in Western Europe, but practically nothing from Britain. I suggest that the visa regime has everything to do with that.
I understand that Poland has been an associate member of the EC since January. I do not know whether my noble friend can comment on that and on whether Poland is or is about to become an associate member, but I presume that freedom and ease of travel would be the least condition to attach to such associate membership if it is to come about.
I am a bit concerned that the question of visitors visas becomes confused at times with the question of immigration. The Asylum Bill is currently being considered by your Lordships' House, and I would like to make the point that that has nothing to do with Poland. I am not asking Her Majesty's Government in this Question that Poles should be allowed to immigrate or have a right of abode here, merely that they should be allowed freely to visit this country for family and business purposes. While I am talking about immigration, perhaps I may mention the fact that, to my knowledge, many Poles are now returning to Poland, and I should think that they number many more than the Polish people who are seeking to live in this country, although statistics on this point would obviously be impossible to obtain.
When the Baltic states obtained their independence last August, their naturals were given immediate visa-free entry to Britain. I was in Poland at that time. Can your Lordships imagine how I felt, as a British subject, completely surrounded by my wife's Polish family? They were very nice to me about it. Citizens of every country in Europe, apart from the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, but including Yugoslavia, have the right to visa-free travel to Britain—every country that is, except Poland.
It is utterly repugnant that we should treat that brave and intelligent nation in that way. I also find it incomprehensible. So many British people, including members of your Lordships' House, recognise the debt that we owe to Poland and have given selfless service to organisations such as Medical Aid to Poland, and in many other ways. What Her Majesty's Government are doing seems to indicate a meanness of spirit. It is sickening to see so much good work being negated by a heartless and, I believe, stupid and unnecessary policy.
I do not wish to anticipate my noble friend's's reply, which I still hope will be favourable, but word gets around and I understand that there is an intention to wait until the summer to assess the experience of our EC partners which have abolished visas for Polish citizens. I very much hope that that is not the reply that I shall receive. In this context, I should like to quote the late Professor Parkinson's law which states that "Delay is the deadliest form of denial". I hope that the Home Office is not playing that game. It would be shameful and unworthy of the traditions of this great country if our bureaucracy were to be allowed to do that and to treat the citizens of a country that stood by us in the greatest trial of our whole history in such an underhand way.
As I have said, I hope that that is not what Her Majesty's Government are up to. I do not think they should wait any longer than they have already. It may not be a direct analogy, but the Polish divisions did not wait at Monte Cassino to see whether someone

359
else would cross the minefields. They did not wait to see whether someone else would fly the Spitfires and Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain.
We ought to know the Poles by now. We should not be sitting on our hands waiting to see what the French or Germans think of them. We should end this situation now before the intransigence of the Home Office does irreparable damage to our relations with a great, brave and friendly nation.
8.54 p.m
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, for his initiative in raising this important topic. I sympathise with him in the information that he has given us and in his struggle on behalf of the Polish people.
In speaking to this subject, I must begin by expressing my own interest. I am chairman of two Polish companies and have been engaged in Anglo-Polish trade for some 30 years. There is something almost unreal about our need to discuss the ending of visas for Poles wishing to visit Britain. Surely we all remember that, at a time when Nazi bombs were burning out the other end of this building, Polish pilots were giving their lives above us in the skies of London in defence of our liberty. We would not be here to debate these matters if they had not fought so hard for us. The appalling thing now is that if the pilots who survived that battle live in Poland and wish to visit this country along with their families—a country that they helped to save—they have to queue up and wait for weeks to obtain permission to come here, whereas the people they fought can walk in without a visa. That is quite monstrous.
Following the Second World War came several decades of communism. Her Majesty's Government were foremost among those who condemned the restrictions of communist regimes, such as those which restricted their people from travelling. There were rebellions in communist countries. In 1953 the East Germans rebelled and were quashed. In 1956 the Hungarians rose and were suppressed. I was present in Prague in 1968 when the Prague Spring was crushed by Soviet tanks. Eventually, it was the Poles—those irrepressible people—who pulled the rug out from under the communist system and brought a great wave of freedom to the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. What, however, has been the result of delivering so many people from serfdom? The East Germans can now come here without visas, as can the Hungarians, the Czechoslovak people and the Lithuanians, but the Polish people, who brought about that freedom, have to queue for permission to come here. That is most distasteful. I sincerely hope that the Minister has something constructive to tell us this evening.
I turn now to a topic that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton. I refer to business visas. The Government are proud of the fact that they introduced a fast-track system for Polish business people wishing to visit Britain, but it is very much a half measure. There is a special window and, with the right documents, Polish business visitors can
360
obtain a visa to come here in a day—if they are lucky. Real life, however, tends to be very different from what the bureaucrats imagine. A business visit of any significance tends to involve between four and six people travelling in one delegation. There is usually a commercial director, a finance director, a couple of engineers and experts and perhaps a lawyer. Each one will have to travel from perhaps 200 miles outside Warsaw to the British Embassy to obtain the visa application form. Each person must bring with him his passport documents to show that he has a genuine business reason for wishing to come to the United Kingdom. Each must fill in the form and return it for validation. It may well take only one day in theory, but I know from experience that, in practice, Polish delegations wishing to come here need to set aside a week to prepare the visas for the group wishing to come here.
Your Lordships may remember that a member of Her Majesty's Government in another place recently urged businessmen going abroad to take their wives with them because that is good for families and for business. She was correct, but it is quite impossible for Polish businessmen coming here to do that. Although the businessman himself may get his visa in a week, his wife would have to queue for many weeks to obtain her visa, so it is impossible.
Let us consider our competitors in Germany. A German entrepreneur merely picks up the telephone and speaks to his opposite number in Warsaw. He says, "Why don't you come over for the weekend? Bring your wife with you, we will put you up in one of our hotels. The rest of your delegation can come on Monday morning and we will tie the whole thing up in one day". A Polish businessman can set out from Warsaw by car and easily be in Berlin the same evening. That is no level playing field. It puts British business at a distinct disadvantage. I trust that Her Majesty's Government realise that they have a great deal to answer for by imposing the unfair burden from which all Anglo-Polish business suffers.
I shall mention a related topic: the bureaucracy imposed on Polish businessmen working here who legally hold work permits which are normally issued for three or four years. Those permits must be revalidated every year. The applicant must send in his passport and visas. It takes six to eight weeks to process that revalidation. During that time, the authorities retain the passport and visas. That means that, effectively, eight weeks out of every year are sterilised for those businessmen. They cannot travel. That is a monstrous imposition. Surely the Government could devise a system to return the passport immediately, having seen it and, if necessary, taken a photocopy. Anything else is pure obstructionism.
The advent of the Common Market, as the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, pointed out, changes the rules. As Poland enters the Common Market, Poles must be given permission to come here without visas. The door is opening, so why are the Government resisting it? We should make a virtue out of necessity, at the very least, and open the door immediately instead of incurring the ill will of our

361
Polish friends. It was the Poles who released the great tide of freedom across East and Central Europe, but Her Majesty's Government have donned King Canute's garb, bidding the tide of freedom to go back. It will not. It is time for the Government to abandon their undignified posture and to hold out the hand of friendship and welcome to our Polish friends.
9.2 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton for reopening this important issue. Noble Lords have once more put the cogent case which surely exists for a change in the Government's policy on visas for Polish citizens. It is, I believe, vital for that sterile approach to those who fought so bravely at our side to be reviewed. I declare that my only interest in this matter is that I had the privilege of fighting side by side with some of them during the war.
I had hoped that, when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister (speaking in another place on his return from the NATO summit last year) spoke of NATO reaching out to the countries of Eastern Europe to help provide stability and a sense of security, adding that Britain would have a central part in that task, a more positive approach to the issue of visas would be an obvious step to take to provide that support.
I do not advocate a change in the visa regulations on grounds of the just deserts of the Poles alone. I argue strongly that it is in our own national interest to demonstrate our belief in them and in the struggle through which they are going to disentangle themselves from the Soviet command economy, and to operate as a free democracy. The Select Committee of this House on the European agreement with Poland, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic said in its admirable eighth report that, while the rebuilding of those three economies would be an enormous and daunting task, political stability would be put under strain during the economic transition period. Thus the quicker the economic reform is completed, the less the political strain will be.
It may be relevant here therefore to quote a CBI resolution carried unanimously at the CBI conference in, I believe, early 1991. It read:
"This Conference believes that British business is missing out on important opportunities in Central and Eastern Europe and urges CBI Members to lose no time in developing strategies or investing in the new Europe".
Witnesses speaking to the Select Committee to which I have referred recognised that Poland has made the most progress towards economic reform by abandoning the old state-controlled economy. The report adds:
"It is already clear that there are serious rifts occurring between those who came to power on a wave of popular discontent with the economic misery and oppressive politics, and the masses who brought them to power, but now have to bear the burden of the austerity programmes introduced".
In Poland, that was evident during the last election, and, indeed, President Walesa recently gave a clear warning to the West that there was serious discontent which could lead to a political backlash. The "big bang" in Poland has been carried out at great political
362
risk and the backlash could, alas, include a sharp move to the Right, something which should worry us deeply.
The situation in the former Soviet Union becomes more and more unstable and unpredictable (particularly given the potential instability of, for instance, the Polish/Ukranian border) and, if we are to secure any lasting and stable future for Europe, it therefore becomes more and more vital to do everything we can to stabilise, in particular, countries such as Poland.
The Poles are a proud people. The invidious nature of our present visa policy has a political and moral impact there which cannot be overstated. To accord them the same standing as the Hungarians and the East Germans (now, with reunification, members of the Community) both former enemies, would be not a generous but a wise and just gesture. That is especially true at a time when NATO has just associated Poland and the former oppressors of Poland (the CIS states) with the treaty on conventional forces.
Britain is making a positive and valuable contribution to the restoration of Poland's infrastructure, and to its economic health, through the Know-How scheme. Why are we wasting the beneficent effects of that investment, as we are undoubtedly doing, by maintaining a visa policy which the Poles (and no doubt their neighbours) perceive as deeply unfriendly and, in its application, not seldom insulting? I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister will be able to secure a change in visa policy. I believe that it is a matter of honour for us to discharge the debt we owe. I share the strong feelings of my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton in the dishonour that it does us to continue to behave as we have.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, although I do not have the privilege of having a Polish wife like the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, I, like him, have been to Poland. I, like him, have been to Warsaw and have walked through the streets to the old city square that has been so splendidly restored after the devastation of the last war. I have talked to citizens in Warsaw, young and old. I have strolled through the underpasses under the main roads where almost every other street vendor sells books, especially books of instruction in the English language.
My firm, too, has been actively involved in Poland for the past two years. One of my senior colleagues is now in Warsaw full-time. Out of this knowledge I have to state that Her Majesty's Government's visa policy continues to cause great resentment among Polish citizens and great embarrassment among those of us who are playing our part now in Warsaw and in the re-creation of its economy.
It has been a little time since I was last in Warsaw, so yesterday I telephoned my colleague and asked her what was the current opinion on the visa policy. She said, "The feeling is still very strong". There are now no visas for Germany, Austria, Italy and France. As the noble Lord recorded, just about every member state now has a policy of no visas for Polish people who wish to visit their countries. My colleague went

363
on to say that the feeling was strong not just because of the queues and the delays. In that respect, she cited a young Polish surgeon, a colleague of hers whom I have met. This young surgeon attempted to get her visa but the queue was long and she could not stay there all day waiting. Only after three weeks was she able to find time to get into the queue to obtain her visa. Even for her, the cost was quite high: 400,000 zlotys, which may sound a lot of money but for a young Polish surgeon earning only 1,300,000 zlotys per month it represents almost a third of her monthly income.
As my colleague pointed out, there are also the personal questions about family finances, bank accounts, status of boyfriends. Recently an official of the Polish embassy visited my offices in London. He took it upon himself to talk to me about our visa policy towards Poland. I asked whether he could show me what the visa form was like. Unfortunately, I was not able to find it to bring to the House to present to the Minister. But I am more than willing to show it to him and also the details of the questionnaire which causes this embarrassment among those who have to complete its details.
The difficulties of ordinary Polish citizens have been well chronicled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, who asked the Question. I do not apologise to your Lordships, in chronicling the matter further, for mentioning the man who was not allowed to accompany his pregnant wife to England for the birth of their child or the scientist who was asked for proof of ownership of her home. I mention also Professor Roman Zelazny, director of the Polish National Atomic Energy Agency who was not allowed to attend an important conference here in Berkshire, and the Warsaw electronics lecturer, Piotr Sokolowski, who had to make an emergency visit to London for cancer treatment and who was painfully delayed.
The best, or perhaps the worst, example is of the two young Poles who won tickets from British Airways to fly free for a weekend in London. They then attempted to get their visas and were told that the issue of a visa could not be considered until they could prove that they had hotel vouchers of £150 each, payable in advance and non-refundable. At that, they returned the gift to British Airways.
As has already been identified in this short debate, the Government's anxiety is apparently over economic migration. Let us be rational. Let Her Majesty's Government be rational. What are the numbers involved? Last year I believe that 60,000 visitors came here, many as yet limited in their command of the English language. Will they flood our labour market? What about the 5 million Poles who visited Germany last year? Did they stay behind to flood the German labour market? Did they disturb the German employment figures? During the same period, more Germans visited Poland than vice versa.
If we are talking about economic migration, what about the potential invasion of 320 million citizens of the EC, all of whom have the right to work here? For in this short debate we are considering not work
364
permits but merely visitors' visas for Polish citizens who just want to come to see our country, visit relatives and friends of long ago and, above all, to learn or improve their skills in the English language.
The question has to be asked: what on earth are Her Majesty's Government doing? They are showing some sense concerning some countries of Eastern Europe with lesser populations such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and East Germany. All of those countries have been freed from the visa requirement, but the Government are refusing to do so for our oldest ally in Central Europe; the ally who led the countries of the East to throw off the yoke of communism. Does that make any sense at all?
9.14 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, for introducing this important and very topical debate. I should like to express my sympathy to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who has to answer the devastating case which has been made against the policy which Her Majesty's Government has pursued through thick and thin with no signs of a positive response. I only hope that this debate, which may be like water dripping on a stone, makes a slight dent in that determination and that the noble Viscount has been granted the opportunity to show some give, some imagination, and to develop a policy which is acceptable to our friends and in the interests of our country.
We have heard a speech from my noble friend Lord Whaddon, from the depth of his experience as a businessman. He raised a point which I do not think has been raised before, to which I hope the noble Viscount will pay attention, about the complication of the revalidation of work permits for businessmen. That is a very important point and one which should be considered.
We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on the wider implications in terms of our general policy towards Central and Eastern Europe which are very relevant. She made the point which cannot be made too often, which I have tried to make in the past, that, in advising those countries to embark on radical policies of economic reform, we are putting a very grave strain on the democratic reforms which we are asking them to undertake simultaneously. We should be aware of that and do what we can to help them in the painful task of introducing a market economy to countries which have none of the infrastructure which a market economy requires and none of the experience which a market economy demands.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, of his own experience, and certain individual horror stories, if I may say so, which are demonstrations of extraordinary ill manners, if of nothing else, to people who have been our brave, loyal friends and co-belligerents in a great struggle.
I speak as one who has been going to Poland since the early 1960s and who has been chairman for many years of the Anglo-Polish Round Table conference, which was the first East-West conference on the lines

365
of KÖnigswinter which was ever started—started characteristically on the initiative of a Polish communist government.
All I can do in the next few moments is to repeat in simple and rather stark terms what has already been said in the course of this debate. What are the facts? As a succession of those who have participated in the debate have repeated, the facts are that visas are offered to Czechs and to Slovaks. No visas are required of them, or of Hungarians or Lithuanians. As many noble Lords have mentioned, no visas are required of Germans, ex-citizens of the GDR, ex-members of Stasi, as the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, pointed out. But in the case of Poles, our allies and friends, despite their links with this country—perhaps because of the 150,000 Poles who live in this country—visas are required. In these circumstances, this appears to them—can you blame them?—as positively insulting. It is another example of bad international manners.
The only other Euro-countries, as has also been said, which demand a visa of Poles are Ireland, Greece, Turkey and Albania. As the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, said, what funny company we keep. A Pole can travel without a visa to Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Austria and Sweden.
As a small consequence of this policy, all British people who go to Poland must have visas, which is very boring. If we lifted the visa requirement, we should not have to have visas ourselves. That provision would disappear tomorrow.
As other noble Lords have said, there is fear of a flood of Poles coming into this country. In my view not only is it untrue and irrational, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, but worse things can happen than a flood of Polish visitors to this country. I do not believe that that would be a pollution to our national life. I should rather like it.
The fact of the matter is that over the past two years the number of Poles travelling abroad has diminished by more than 20 per cent. According to figures at my disposal, in 1990 14.2 million Poles travelled in and out of Poland; in 1991 the figure was 10.4 million. In 1990 57,000 Polish visas were issued by this country; in 1991 47,000 visas were issued. In 1991 2,300 visas were refused. Those figures are also reflected in the Schengen group, where no visas are required. There has been the same drop in travel as to this country.
Nor are the Poles the largest group of Eastern Central European groups to come to this country. More Yugoslavs came last year than Poles, and they do not need visas. Some 36,000 Yugoslavs came here in 1990; 908 were turned away at the places of entry. That did not totally disrupt immigration control, which is one of the arguments which is used for insisting on visas for Poles.
I need not elaborate on the reasons for the drop in the numbers visiting this country, but Poles no longer receive six months' unpaid leave to work abroad and air fares have risen to Western levels. In addition, according to a recent opinion poll, most Poles do not want to leave Poland. At the most 11 per cent. have expressed some intention of leaving at some time. However, if they did so this country would not be top
366
of the pops. It is rather low down on the list. According to the poll, the preferences are for North America, Germany, Australia, Italy, France and Scandinavia before this country. Indeed, only 7 per cent. put England as their first preference. If one takes 89 per cent. as the number who want to stay at home and approximately 10 per cent. as the number who might leave the country, that is 3,500,00 people, the Polish population being as it is. If, like me, you cannot do mathematics, you make that 7 per cent. 10 per cent.; then, according to my calculation, that is a total of 3,500 people. That is the number of people for which this huge operation of visa controls has been devised. We could put them all in the Albert Hall. We could squeeze them into this Chamber if we wanted to.
Is it really for that purpose that we have those procedures and that we are gathering such ill will? I find that very difficult to credit, particularly if one considers the expense involved, which is very substantial. As I understand it, we have eight immigration officers in Poland all the year round. From March to September there are another five. The cost of the whole of the diplomatic operation in Poland is £2.6 million. The cost of the immigration operation in Poland is £1.1 million—almost one half. That is the cost of the operation to stop a few people who may possibly want to come to settle here. Is that really worth while?
Is it worth while gathering so much ill will? Is it worth while to undo the good work of the embassy by spending half as much again on making people angry, being rude to our friends and gathering odium? I find it extraordinary. I can only ascribe it to a lack of imagination which afflicts the Home Office from time to time. The Foreign Office should stand up to the Home Office because it is the Foreign Office which carries the can. I have known most of our ambassadors to Poland since the 1960s and I do not know one who, after he had retired, would not say that that was one of the crosses he had to bear. They should be relieved of that burden and of the need to spend £1 million gathering ill will. They should be allowed to spend that money doing something positive for the Poles who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, pointed out, are a crucial element in ensuring the stability of Central Europe and therefore the stability and peace of this continent.
9.25 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, this House has tonight heard a number of powerful and moving speeches from many different sides, urging Her Majesty's Government to concede that the visa requirement in respect of Polish citizens who wish to come to this country as visitors should go. We on these Benches too are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, for raising this timely Question again.
The Polish people are historically our friends and allies. Our wartime debt to Poland and the Poles who lost their lives fighting must never be forgotten. The 150,000-plus strong Polish community in this country is a model of all that an immigrant community should be; hard-working, law-abiding and making an

367
important contribution to the life of its adopted nation. In recent years Poland has led the way to democracy in Eastern Europe and must now have our support, friendship and help in the difficult economic times which it faces in the immediate future.
Whenever this matter has been raised—as it has been with increasing frequency and force within the past two years—Her Majesty's Government have maintained in effect that it is precisely because of that background and our particularly close links with Poland that visa restraints are necessary, even though we have abolished them for other Eastern European countries with whom our ties are looser. The Government have gone on to argue that if they were removed for Poles, a flood of visitors would arrive at our ports, many only to be turned back because they did not meet the requirements of the rules, which would lead in turn to a souring of our relations with Poland, congestion at the ports and inconvenience and delay for other passengers.
The justification given for maintaining the restrictions contains also the suspicion that if they were removed, substantial numbers of Polish citizens would seek to work here illegally. Those propositions now need to be re-examined urgently. Developments in Poland and throughout Eastern Europe and the recent experience of our European partners who have dropped their visa requirements call for a fresh examination of Poland's position as a matter of urgency. As I understand it and as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, in 1991 the number of Polish citizens travelling abroad dropped by just under 30 per cent., partly as a result of higher travel costs but also because, notwithstanding Polish unemployment, students who previously came to the West to take holiday work can now earn realistic wages in the growing Polish private sector.
There has been a downturn too in the number of Polish citizens visiting the Schengen group of countries where visas have been abolished. It is clearly highly relevant to future government policy to know whether there appears to be a similar downturn in numbers applying to come to the United Kingdom. On 22nd July last year the noble Viscount told this House that in 1990 57,000 Polish citizens were admitted on visas to this country, 2,000 were refused visas and 20,000 withdrew their application. I ask him today to say whether he is satisfied that those figures are correct. If they are, let me put them in context. Out of some 18 million tourists who visited Britain in 1990, 0.31 per cent. came from Poland. Will he also be kind enough to tell us in his reply how many visa applications were made by Polish citizens in 1991? Can he give an indication of the numbers that were granted, those refused and those that were withdrawn last year?
Can he also tell us whether the experience of Germany with over 1 million citizens of Polish origin, or those of France, Belgium, Italy, Holland, Austria, Sweden and Switzerland, all of which have removed the visa requirement, are giving support to the concerns which underlie Her Majesty's Government's present policy? As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking,
368
asked: has there been an opening of the floodgates, trouble at the borders or an unacceptable level of over-stayers or those illegally employed in those countries? Will the noble Viscount give an indication of the number of Polish citizens who were deported from Britain in 1991 for staying or working illegally in this country?
It is disquieting to hear from the East European Trade Council that the visa restraints between the two countries are the biggest single obstacle to British trade and investment with Poland. It is alarming to learn from the CBI survey of 3,500 British businesses engaged in Eastern Europe that some 40 per cent. of them have found real problems in obtaining visas for Polish employees to travel to the United Kingdom for work or staff training, putting them at a disadvantage with businesses based in other Western European nations where there are no restraints, despite the fast track about which the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, spoke.
It is also profoundly distressing to hear of the personal anguish and difficulties of those who wish to visit relatives, such as those about whom the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, spoke, or those who wish to come to this country for training or treatment and who are denied visas or face long delay, inconvenience, hardship and expense in obtaining them.
Will the noble Viscount give an undertaking that he will examine those difficulties and the consequences of maintaining existing government policy on the matter in the light of the new figures and the new information as a matter of urgency? So long as visa requirements are to remain, will the noble Viscount tell the House what steps have been taken and are proposed to be taken to mitigate the considerable problems which Polish citizens were facing when applying for visas and which the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, described graphically in this House on 13th November of last year and about which other noble Lords have spoken tonight. Will the noble Viscount tell us what is the average time now taken to process a visa and whether Her Majesty's Government are still seeking new and more spacious premises, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, indicated in May 1990 would be done but which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, indicated had not been improved upon by the time that he answered a Question on the matter in November last year?
Will the noble Viscount confirm how many of the consulate staff are engaged in the visa section? Will he confirm the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, as to the annual cost of maintaining the visa requirement for Polish citizens?
A review of government policy, its effects and its underlying reasons is now long overdue. We owe it to our Polish community and to our friends the Polish nation. From these Benches I can say that following a change of government such a review and a reappraisal of the present policy will be carried out without any delay.
9.32 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the interest and concern felt by many of your Lordships over the visa requirement for Polish citizens has been made abundantly clear in the course of this debate. I shall, of course, draw the very deep concern that noble Lords have expressed today to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. However, I have to inform my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton that we are not convinced that it would be right to abolish the visa requirement at present. However, I hope that that bitter pill is sweetened somewhat when I add that we shall look again at the need for this regime in the summer when the impact of visa abolition on the Schengen countries may have become more apparent.
The United Kingdom has a visa requirement for nationals of 82 countries or territorial entities including Poland. Visas are a mechanism for enabling immigration and other checks to be carried out before travel. They are expensive to operate and in many respects inconvenient for passengers. For those reasons we have no interest in maintaining them in cases where we believe that they are not necessary either on immigration grounds or for national security reasons.
Each visa regime must be justified on its merits. Your Lordships will be aware that some of our European partners decided last year to remove their own visa requirements for Polish nationals. Partly as a result of that decision we have recently reviewed our own requirement. Our conclusion was that conditions are not yet right for us to do so.
Our concern is the large number of visa applications received by our Embassy in Warsaw from people who do not meet the requirements of the immigration rules. Last year about 2,500 applicants were actually refused a visa. There were 1,318 withdrawals and 17,619 inquiries. I must point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that the 1990 figures which I gave last year were correct. The difference was that withdrawals and inquiries were recorded together. In 1990 74 Poles were removed, and to 30th November 1991 173 Poles were removed from this country under enforcement powers.
If visas were abolished the first point of contact for Polish citizens wishing to come here would be with immigration officers at ports of entry. Immigration officers have to apply the same criteria as visa officers. From the figures that I have given it will be apparent that last year, if there had been no visa regime, nearly 3,000 Polish citizens may have had to be refused entry at the ports—
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the number 3,000? I understood that the number of refusals was 2,300. To add 700 to that figure seems to me to exaggerate.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was pointing out that some of those who had withdrawn would probably have come to this country. If one adds together the number of applicants refused a visa and the number of withdrawals the total is 3,800, so I do not believe that
370
I was exaggerating. In 1991 more than 62,000 Polish citizens came to this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, pointed out. Immigration officers would, of course, have had no way of telling whether a specific person did or did not meet the criteria for admission unless they questioned each Polish citizen. At present that necessary process is carried out when the visa is issued, and immigration officers need only check, if necessary, that circumstances have not changed since then.
I believe that the figures speak for themselves. It is clear that in 1991, if there had been no visa regime, there would have been a high risk of large numbers of Polish citizens who are ineligible for entry seeking entry to the United Kingdom. In order to detect them, all Polish citizens seeking entry would have to be delayed at the ports and questioned. In its turn that would have delayed travellers of other nationalities. That adds up to congestion at the ports, irritation and delay for many bona fide travellers and the refusal of entry and the return to Poland of a large number of Polish citizens. In particular, refusal of entry would be expensive and upsetting for the individuals concerned —much more upsetting than the denial of a visa in Warsaw. For the purpose of comparison I point out that just before we imposed a visa regime upon citizens of Algeria, Morocco and Turkey in 1989, refusal of leave to enter at our ports was running at about 3,000, 2,000 and 2,000 respectively. The serious risk of such high numbers refused admission and the inevitable delay to bona fide Polish visitors would in itself harm the good relations between our two countries.
I acknowledge the cogent arguments for abolishing the present visa regime put forward by many noble Lords. But all the factors that I have mentioned argue strongly in favour of retaining our visa requirement at the present time. In the Government's view the arguments in favour of a visa regime are at present more persuasive than those in favour of removing it.
The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, mentioned that we have abolished visas for Czechs and Hungarians. However, the background of visa casework for those two nationalities was entirely different. In 1989 our Embassies in Prague and Budapest had refused only 20 visa applications. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned the Baltic states. As I stated earlier, we do not impose visa regimes lightly and each case must be judged on its merits. Since the Baltic states obtained their independence from the Soviet Union, only a handful of their citizens have travelled to this country on Baltic passports. That contrasts sharply with the number of Polish citizens visiting the United Kingdom and explains the difference in visa requirements.
I accept that we must and will take account of the experience of our European partners when reviewing whether to maintain our own visa requirement. However, the full effects of visa abolition by some EC states have yet to become apparent. For example, in some cases periods of leave granted on entry have yet to expire. Thus, it is not easy to establish to what degree Polish nationals have complied with the time limits imposed on entry. For that reason we intend to undertake a further review of the need for a UK visa

371
regime later this year. We hope that by then the impact of visa abolition upon other member states may have become more apparent.
The point has been made strongly that a visa requirement is inappropriate for Poland, given the sacrifices made by her nationals during the Second World War. It is, of course, the case that since the war it has been necessary to impose visa regimes upon several of our Allies. For example, the Nepalese, including the Ghurkas, Indians and Pakistanis all now require visas before coming to the UK. We will always owe a debt of gratitude to the brave men and women who fought for the Allied cause. But the immigration rules must reflect immigration pressures that exist today and must be applied fairly to all nationalities.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, smiles. However, I should point out to him that until very recently the United States of America required British citizens to obtain visas before travelling to America. I do not believe that for the 45 years since the war we in England have regarded it as a slight or a blot on our relationships with the United States because we have had to obtain visas to visit America when they have not had to obtain visas to visit England.
As regards visa issuing in Warsaw, I appreciate that applicants may feel resentful when they have to wait for an interview and are then required to answer questions about their intentions. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that the visa questionnaire is the same as that used in other countries where visas are required. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made strenuous efforts to streamline procedures in order to prevent queues and delays and has provided extra staff to help deal with the annual increase in work during the summer months. A same day service is now provided for most visa applicants. In addition, applicants are encouraged to apply through recognised travel agents —around 40 per cent. of total applications were lodged in this way last summer. In straightforward cases such applications are turned around in 48 hours.
The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, made a point about businessmen wishing to come to this country. Frequent visitors, including businessmen, can apply for multiple entry visas valid for two years.
Questions about intentions are essential in order to assess a person's admissibility under the immigration rules and therefore maintain an effective immigration control. Hard-pressed staff in Warsaw carry out their tasks as courteously and efficiently as possible. Moreover, I must say to my noble friend Lord Belhaven that they are under strict instructions to treat all applicants with sensitivity and respect. Of course it is inevitable that any refusal decision would be upsetting and unwelcome to the applicant. But there is a right of appeal. Any specific complaints about the visa operation at Warsaw are dealt with speedily by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Perhaps I may answer some questions about that. In Warsaw improvements will be made to provide extra reception points and an expanded and covered
372
questions area for the busy summer season. The search for new accommodation for the visa section continues.
As regards the number of personnel, Warsaw has seven permanent entry clearance officers supervised by the consul or the First Secretary and supported by two UK-based and 19 locally engaged staff, of whom 18 are Polish. The staff is increased by five temporary duty UK-based officers and seven locally engaged staff to cover the busy summer period from 1st April to 30th September. The Warsaw embassy received 48,464 firm applications in 1991, of which 99 per cent. were for visit visas.
My noble friend Lord Belhaven mentioned the EC association agreements. The association agreements between Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and EC member states have been signed but will not come into force until they have been ratified. The agreements will not require EC member states to lift visa regimes where they are in force. We hope that the agreements will come into force by the end of the year, but I should stress that they are basically trade agreements.
I must repeat that the answer to the Question posed by my noble friend is that for the present we intend to impose a visa regime upon Polish citizens. I know that that will disappoint him and other noble Lords who have spoken movingly tonight about the Poles and their relationship with this country. However, I made clear that it is not an answer we have reached lightly. As my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth pointed out, bilateral relations must be taken into account. It is for that reason as well as immigration concerns that we shall look at the issue again later this year. I hope that promise makes my answer somewhat more palatable to my noble friend.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps he will comment on the withholding of Polish passports and visas during the period of revalidation of working permits.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have any information for the noble Lord this evening. However, I shall look into the matter and write to him.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down for the second time, perhaps he will give consideration to one specific point of relief. I refer to the reduction or abolition of the cost of the visa.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the cost for a visa is the same in all countries and the Government believe that the visa operation should be financed through fees paid by those who use the facility rather than the British taxpayer. Visa fees are calculated with that objective in mind. They were made non-refundable in 1988 to help meet that aim, since costs were incurred during the processing of an application. However, withdrawals prior to payment incur no cost to the applicant.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before ten o'clock.

  MAGISTRATES' COURTS ORGANISATION: WHITE PAPER
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS ORGANISATION: WHITE PAPER
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981, SCHEDULE 14
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981, SCHEDULE 14
  MARINE CONSULTATION AREAS
  MARINE CONSULTATION AREAS
  PRISON DISTURBANCES REPORT: CHAIRMANSHIP OF AREA COMMITTEES
  PRISON DISTURBANCES REPORT: CHAIRMANSHIP OF AREA COMMITTEES