Sitting of 12 May 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Members Sworn
The following Members took and subscribed the Oath, or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law:

Robert Parry, esquire, Liverpool, Riverside.

Julian Michael Gordon Critchley, esquire, Aldershot.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To he read a Second time on Thursday.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Return ordered,
  For Session 1991–92 of—

  (1) the total number of Questions to Ministers or other Members which stood on the Order Paper, distinguishing those set down for oral, written priority and written answer respectively, the number of days upon which replies to Questions for oral answer were given in the House; and the total number of Questions for oral answer to which such answers were given in the House;

  (2) the total number of Notices of Motions given for an early day;

  (3) the number of Members ordered to withdraw from the House under Standing Order No. 42 (Disorderly conduct), showing separately the orders given in the House and those given in Committee; and the Members suspended from the service of the House under Standing Order No. 43 (Order in debate) or otherwise, distinguishing whether the offence was committed in the House or in Committee, the period of such suspension, the number of occasions on which more than one Member was so suspended having jointly disregarded the authority of the Chair, and the number of occasions on which the attention of the House was called to the need for recourse to force to compel obedience to the Speaker's direction; and

  (4) the number of public petitions presented to the House, distinguishing separately those brought to the Table at the times specified by Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions)—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE AND ALLOCATION OF TIME
  Return ordered,
  Respecting—

  (a) applications of Standing Order No. 35 (Closure of debate) during Session 1991–92:

  (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

  Question before House or Committee when claimed

  Whether in House or Committee

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

  Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

  and

  (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

  Question before House or Committee when claimed

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

  Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

  and

  (b) applications of Standing Order No. 28 (Powers of Chair to propose question) during Session 1991–92:

  (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

  Whether in House or Committee

  Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

  Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

  and

  (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

  1

  2

  3

  4

  Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

  Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

  Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

  and

  (c) the number of Bills in respect of which allocation of time orders distinguishing where appropriate orders supplementary to a previous order) were made under Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills), showing in respect of each Bill—

  (i) the number of sittings allotted to the consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee by any report of a Business Sub-Committee under Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) agreed to by the Standing Committee, and the number of sittings of the Standing Committee pursuant thereto; and

  (ii) the number of days or portions of days allotted by the allocation of time order and any supplementary order to the consideration of the Bill at any stage in the House or in committee, together with the number of days upon which proceedings were so taken in the House or in committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE AND ALLOCATION OF TIME

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Return ordered,
    for Session 1991–92 of—

    (A) the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and those for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute (1) laid before the House; and (2) considered by the Joint Committee and Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of reference, setting out the grounds on which Instruments may be drawn to the special attention of the House under Standing Order No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and specifying the number of Instruments so reported under each of these grounds; and

    (B) the numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., and by the House respectively, showing the number where the Question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under paragraph (5) of the Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS
    Return ordered,
    for Session 1991–92 of—

    (1) the number of Private Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House, and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed, specifying also the dates of the House's consideration of the several stages of such Bills;

    (2) all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated by the House or partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Order ought or ought not to be confirmed;

    (3) all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended;

    (4) the number of Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, distinguishing those proceeded with under section 7 and under section 9 respectively; specifying, in the case of Bills proceeded with under section 9 against which petitions were deposited, whether a motion was made to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee, and if so, whether such motion was agreed to, withdrawn, negatived or otherwise disposed of; and stating for each Joint Committee to which a Bill was referred the names of the Members of this House nominated thereto, the first and last day of the Committee's sitting, the number of days on which each Joint Committee sat for the consideration of the Bill referred to it, the number of days on which each Member of the Committee served, and whether the Committee reported that the Order ought or ought not be confirmed;

    (5) the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee; and

    (6) the membership, work costs and staff of the Court of Referees and the Standing Orders Committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    PUBLIC BILLS
    Return ordered,
    for Session 1991–92 of the number of Public Bills (other than Bills to confirm Provisional Orders and Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, showing—

    (1) the number which received the Royal Assent; and

    (2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of Prorogation.[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
    Return ordered,
    for Session 1991–92 of the days on which the House sat; stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; the total numbers of hours occupied in the sittings of the House; and the average time; showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business; and specifying, for each principal type of business before the House, how much time was spent thereon, distinguishing from the total the time spent after the hour appointed for the interruption of business.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS
    Return ordered,
    for Session 1991–92 of—

    (1) the number of Special Procedure Orders presented, the number withdrawn; the number annulled; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were desposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received and the number certified by them as being Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved and be amended respectively; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders; and

    (2) Special Procedure Orders which were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    STANDING COMMITTEES
    Return ordered,
    for Session 1991–92 of—

    (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more Standing Committees showing with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present;

    (2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items referred to Standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.), or Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees), considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sitttings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items as above considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and other item, the particular Committee by which it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered

    479
    (including, in the case of the Scottish Grand Committee, the number of Meetings held in Edinburgh pursuant to a motion made under paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee)) and the number of Members present at each of those sittings; and

    (3) the membership, work, costs and staff of the Chairmen's Panel.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    SELECT COMMITTEES
    Return ordered,
    for Session 1991–92 of statistics relating to the membership, work, costs and staff of Select Committees (other than the Standing Orders Committee).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Accident and Casualty Department, Haringey
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has any plans to set up an accident and emergency casualty department in the borough of Haringey.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): No. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the residents of Haringey receive accident and emergency services from excellent local hospitals.
    Mrs. Roche: Is the Minister aware that the two local hospitals, Whittington and North Middlesex, are extremely overstretched and in a financial crisis and that a consultant at North Middlesex hospital estimates that if it were to keep to its contracts for paediatric care it would have to turn away 600 sick children seeking admission from accident and emergency treatment? Does that not make a sham of the pledge in the Gracious Speech to improve the quality of the national health service?
    Mr. Sackville: No. There is no question of any patients being turned away from either hospital. I suggest to the hon. Lady that she might like to take a step back from her party's usual policy of denigration from a distance, visit the accident and emergency units and let me know of her impressions.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are determined to improve health services for the whole of Greater London and to ensure that the needs of London are matched by the resources to improve health care for everyone in the capital?
    Mr. Sackville: I thank my hon. Friend for those observations. No residents of Haringey are more than 3 miles from one of the accident and emergency units. There is no reason why they should not have an excellent service.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: North Middlesex hospital might be three miles from south Tottenham where my constituents live, but on a Saturday afternoon, especially when Spurs are playing, the High road becomes virtually a war zone, which means that my constituents are not able to get to the hospital. What will the Minister do about that?
    Mr. Sackville: I am aware of various complaints that the hon. Gentleman has made about North Middlesex hospital. As far as I know, none of the complaints that the Department has received has involved football matches. There is at least one complaint, however, on which I intend to receive a report.

    Women Doctors
    Mr. Hargreaves: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family doctors (a) in 1979 and (b) currently are women.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): At 1 October 1979, there were 3,261 women general medical practitioners; the number had risen to 6,430 at 1 October 1991. This represents an increase of 97·2 per cent.
    Mr. Hargreaves: Does my right hon. Friend believe that those figures suggest an answer to those general practitioners who were concerned that changes to their funding arrangements would inevitably lead to a reduction in the number of female general practitioners?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It certainly is a clear answer. The general practitioner contract made it clear for the first time that there could be part-time general practitioners, which was a help for women. We improved the locum arrangements for those wanting to go on maternity leave. There has been a substantial increase in the number of women GPs and we want to see the same increase in the number of women consultants. In our targets for the Opportunity 2000 programme we make it clear that we are determined to see progress for nurses, women doctors and members of health authorities and trusts. We want to see the development of women's careers throughout the service.

    Perioperative Deaths
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her response to the conclusions of the national confidential inquiry into perioperative deaths.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): We welcome this report. It shows that standards of surgical and anaesthetic care are generally high and have improved since earlier reports.
    Mr. Connarty: Is the Minister aware that Professor Donald Campbell, who chaired the review, expressed concern about the inadequate location of emergency facilities, emergency operating theatres, intensive care units and high dependency units? Is he aware also that concern was expressed about the lack of adequate staffing in some of those units? I know that the Government's policy for Scottish health is dealt with by the Scottish Office, but the Government's general policy obviously impinges on my constituency. For example, is the Minister aware that nurses at Falkirk royal infirmary are expressing concern that the high dependency unit is not staffed adequately to be an intensive care unit? Does the Minister plan to do anything about the report in the near future?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be encouraged to know that the inquiry found that the standards of surgical and anaesthetic care were high and that the overall trends demonstrated considerable improvements since earlier reports. As for the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he will know that that is a matter for my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
    Mr. Devlin: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the rest of the health team on their new appointments.
    I point out to my hon. Friend that the report of the confidential inquiry into perioperative deaths shows that there are far too many intensive care units in small hospitals across the country and calls for their concentration into bigger trauma and stress units in centres of population. Does not that throw up some interesting conclusions for the large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who frequently argue for the continuation of their own small cottage hospitals?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He will be encouraged to know that there are nearly 2,500 available beds in intensive care units in England and more than 300 about to open.
    We want to improve the provision of intensive care if possible, and proposals from the College of Anaesthetists are being considered.
    Ms. Harman: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Minister. Will he, however, demonstrate a little more concern and a little less complacency about a report which states that there are needless deaths after surgery because of the shortage of consultants and the lack of intensive care units? Perhaps, instead of telling us that everything is perfectly all right and running smoothly, the hon. Gentleman will act on the findings of the report and deal with the shortage of consultants and the lack of intensive care units.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's kind remarks, soured ever so slightly by the rest of her question. Ministers are not complacent. I have already told the hon. Lady of the number of intensive care beds and the fact that more are to be opened. She also asked about the number of consultants. She might more properly have mentioned the extra 100 consultants in acute specialties whose posts were created following publication of the White Paper "Working for Patients". I did not hear her mention, either, the 350 new consultants' posts that have been agreed as part of the new deal for junior doctors.

    Health (Funding)
    Mr. Channon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for providing extra money for underfunded health districts in overfunded health regions.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Regional health authorities are responsible for revenue allocations to health districts. Every regional health authority was given a real increase of at least 3·5 per cent. for 1992–93, allowing a margin for all regions to bring underfunded districts closer to their weighted capitation share.
    Mr. Channon: Is my hon. Friend aware that for many years Southend has been in this position, that there has been some modest extra help, which is welcome and which has provided extra benefits for residents of Southend, but that the process must go on? Will he make it his policy while he holds his portfolio to ensure that money follows the patient, so that those who treat most patients are given adequate money to do so?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Yes. I know of my right hon. Friend's continuing concern about this matter. I am grateful that he recognises that North East Thames region went out of its way to be helpful to Southend, which started the year at about 10 per cent. below average and, as a result of the extra money provided to it in this financial year, is now less than 5 per cent. below average. I am glad that my right hon. Friend welcomes that, and I can assure him that the process will continue. I hope that it will even reach a conclusion in the next financial year.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister comment on underfunding in intensive care units over the past five years, and on the report by Paddy Ross, the eminent surgeon who resigned from the Tory party because of

    483
    undefrfunding and the Government's reforms? I will pass his letter on to the Minister. He states that a woman died in the Royal Hampshire hospital, possibly because of underfunding in the intensive care unit. Will the Minister make up that funding and stop tragedies like that happening again?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I will be happy to receive the letter if the hon. Lady cares to send it to me. Her question must be viewed in the context of record spending in the health service this year, including in the Halifax area. Against that background I find her comments rather hard to understand.

    Health Green Paper
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organisations have responded to the Green Paper "The Health of the Nation".
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Almost 1,200 responses were received from organisations and associations; a further 900 replies were received from individuals. That demonstrates the very great interest in the initiative to improve health, which is high on the Government's agenda and to which I attach the highest importance.
    Mr. Steen: I welcome the excellent Green Paper, particularly as it points out the need to reduce smoking in all age groups. Bearing in mind that some 60 per cent. of patients in hospitals are there because of some smoking or smoking-related disease, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should ban smoking in public places or at least cordon off an area so that smokers can enjoy smoking without infecting all those who do not enjoy it?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous remark about the Green Paper, the credit for which is entirely due to my predecessor, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. For the first time, we have a strategy to prevent ill-health as well as to treat it, and that is a significant achievement. My hon. Friend has long been a champion of the anti-smoking cause. Great progress is being made in banning smoking from many public places. As my hon. Friend will know, we prefer the voluntary approach, but there are times when legislation is required. We are now seeing the removal of smoking from various forms of public transport, from many public places and from Government offices, and we shall continue to maintain the momentum.
    Mr. Eastham: May I impress upon the Secretary of State the need to give greater thought to dental care, especially for young children? Would not it be a good idea to include the sugar content on soft drink labels on such as Coca Cola, which I understand contains about seven spoonfuls of sugar and is detrimental to children's teeth? Will the right hon. Lady do something about that?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am able to report that our record on children's dental health is impressive, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's thinking, which is exactly the thinking behind the health strategy. We want to think widely about labelling and how we can improve health and prevent disease. In addition to thinking in terms of health services, the effective provision of information is exactly the way forward.
    Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that back pain causes massive absenteeism, distress and waste and that the problem is increasing by 13 per cent. a year? Does she agree that the National Back Pain Association deserves positive support and encouragement?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Having just welcomed my constituent, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), to the House, I am well aware of the difficulties caused by back pain. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is right. Back pain is a significant cause of disability and disease, not least among health service staff, and it is one of the matters that we are considering. The Health and Safety Executive is bringing forward guidelines through the Health Service Advisory Committee. The organisation to which my hon. Friend referred clearly has an important part to play in promoting awareness and understanding.
    Mr. Robin Cook: I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on her promotion. I also congratulate her on presiding over a team which contains the largest number of Ministers in the history of the NHS, which may seem odd since they administer the fewest hospitals in the history of the NHS. Can the Secretary of State confirm that since the Green Paper was published she has received a report from her own officials that an advertising ban would cut tobacco consumption and, therefore, cancer? Why, then, does she not drop Britain's objection to a European advertising ban? It surely is not because Imperial Tobacco provided the Conservative party with 2,000 poster sites during the election and on this issue the health of the Conservative party comes before the health of the nation.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, but he never seems to change. He always has a cynical reaction. He always concentrates on means, not ends. In the same way as he comments on the number of hospitals and not on the quality of patient care, he is always addressing the wrong issue. We are determined to achieve a further fall in tobacco smoking in Britain. We have one of the most powerful records of any country in the EC. It is interesting that many of those countries which support a ban on tobacco advertising have their own nationalised tobacco industries and all of them except one have cheap cigarettes. We believe in fighting smoking by means of price and advertising and we do not support the subsidy on tobacco growing through the common agricultural policy. We will achieve the ends. I am fed up with the hon. Gentleman constantly looking at the means and not the ends.

    Family Doctors
    Mr. Hawksley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding was provided for family doctors in 1989–90; and what is the current level of provision.
    Mr. Sackville: The sum of £1.5 billion was provided for general medical services in 198–0. The figure for the current year is £2.4 billion.
    Mr. Hawksley: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Recent opinion polls show that nine out of 10 patients think that they receive a good service

    485
    from their general practitioners. Does my hon. Friend think that there has been a great change in the past few years?
    Mr. Sackville: It is not surprising that there is general satisfaction with primary care. The number of practice staff has nearly doubled over the past 10 years, as has the number of services that practices offer.

    AIDS
    Dr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that health authorities are spending appropriately money allocated for HIV and AIDS; and if she will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): Health authority use of earmarked funds for AIDS-related services is monitored through the reports required under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987. From this year, we have also introduced a requirement for regions to submit to the Department forward spending plans, which will be checked against quarterly monitoring reports.
    Dr. Strang: Does the Minister agree that it is more important than ever that health authorities allocate adequate resources to help to prevent the spread of AIDS and to provide care and treatment to those who are HIV positive or who have AIDS? The House welcomes the Minister's confirmation that quarterly monitoring is now supplementing the annual reports made under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987. May we take it that the Government are determined to ensure effective ring fencing of the money required for those purposes?
    Mr. Yeo: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's close interest in that subject over the years and confirm that the Government are determined to ensure, through the quarterly monitoring reports, which are operating for the first time in the current year, that the substantial resources allocated to AIDS-related services are used for the intended purposes. Those resources amount to more than £180 million in the current year, which is a rise of more than one third over last year, and contribute to expenditure of more than £650 million since 1987.

    Regional Health Authorities
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of regional health authorities.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We have no current plans to change the role of regional health authorities, although we will be examining their role as we continue to implement our reforms to improve the health service.
    Mr. Bayley: It is odd that the Secretary of State makes no mention of the newly created regional outposts of the NHS management executive, which are assuming powers in relation to opted-out hospitals that were previously the province of regional health authorities. Unlike those authorities, regional outposts do not meet in public or have members who are accountable to the public, and they were not established by statute. Will the Secretary of State describe the role of the new regional outposts, explain what will be left for regional health authorities to do, and state whether there will be a statutory basis for the
    486
    outposts-or will they be part of a secret, centralised, east European-style command economy for the national health service?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The six regional outposts will essentially monitor the financial effectiveness of NHS trusts and report back to the management executive. The role of the regions will remain as it is—that of central authorities seeing through the priorities established by Ministers and the management executive. This year, regions are charged with ensuring further progress with the patients charter, which is a central element in our health programme, seeing through the further implementation of community care and enhancing the health of the nation. They work by monitoring and, with the family health services and district health authorities, strengthen the purchasing power which, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, is the key to securing the quality improvements that are so important to the nation's health.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that regional health authorities are too vast, bureaucratic and remote, and that the sooner we move to a system of direct funding for the capital works of district health authorities, the better the service will be run?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will be reassured to learn that the number of staff working in regional health authorities has fallen in recent years. The authorities have a function—to form a link between the management executive and Ministers, and the district health authorities—and it is important for the task that they are undertaking to benefit the districts and to be properly understood. I shall bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind.
    Ms. Armstrong: Is the Secretary of State aware that many regional health authorities are not releasing sufficient funds to get community care up and running? How does she intend to ensure that local authorities have enough resources from the regions to be able to put community care into operation?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady will know that the success of community care depends on an effective relationship between social service departments and regional health authorities. At present, we ask them to report to us every six months—and more often—to make certain that the work is under way.
    District health authorities have been involved for 20 or 30 years in community care for people with learning disabilities, the mentally ill and elderly patients. The question of resources for social service departments arises regularly in the yearly local authority spending round, and we have made it clear that community care will be fairly funded.

    Health Promotion
    Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent family doctors are improving health promotion.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Significant progress has been made since the introduction of the GPs' new contract. In particular, there are now more GPs holding health promotion clinics, immunisation uptake is rising and more women are being screened for cervical cancer.
    Mr. Davies: Do not the new targets in the GPs' contract relating to child immunisation, regular health checks, cervical cytology, mammography and other diagnostic procedures represent a revolutionary advance in the practice of preventive health care?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a new, innovative and very important development in the preventive work of general practitioners. In the context of prevention and health promotion, I am sure that my hon. Friend and the rest of the House will be pleased to know that in 1990, for the first time in the United Kingdom, no child died from acute measles.
    Mr. George Howarth: Has the Minister any proposals to involve GPs in trying preventive measures to stop the spread of anorexia nervosa—which is very worrying, especially in view of its effect on young women? The problem needs to be tackled and it seems to me that GPs are the obvious starting point.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the disease, which is indeed very worrying and, as he knows, can sometimes be fatal. I am sure that he is right to point out that the initial contact between patient and general practitioner is significant—it may even be crucial in some cases—and I will bear his comments in mind.

    Immunisation
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children are now immunised against (a) whooping cough and (b) measles; and what was the proportion in 1978.
    Mr. Yeo: By February 1992, 89 per cent. of children aged two had been immunised against whooping cough and 91 per cent. against measles. This is a big improvement since 1978, when only 31 per cent. were immunised against whooping cough and 48 per cent. against measles.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that those welcome figures have been caused partly by the new GP contract, which has had a very good effect on the level of immunisation in the past couple of years? As the Minister for Health has just pointed out, we have managed to achieve a year with no deaths from measles. Is not that yet another sign that the new contract is bearing fruit?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is quite right. The GPs, like everyone else involved in the programme, are owed a great debt of gratitude. The figures show how successful the contract was; they also show how utterly wrong the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was in 1989, when he described the target set for general practices as
    "heroic…far beyond the present figure for most practices".—[Official Report, 25 July 1989; Vol. 157, c. 910.] As usual, the hon. Gentleman underestimated what the national health service can achieve with Conservative policies, under Conservative leadership and with the backing that the present Government give the health service.

    Charitable Fund Raising
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about charitable fund raising for national health service services.
    Dr. Mawhinney: We value the charitable contributions that people make to the health service through their voluntary efforts.
    Mr. Enright: Is the Minister aware that a considerable number of hospital managers have declared that they are dependent on charity for their services? It must be true—it was in The Daily Telegraph. Is the Minister also aware that the Charity Commissioners have consistently stated—and I quote—
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not reading from any speech. [Interruption.] Hear me out, please. If the hon. Gentleman is quoting, that is not permissible. Will he please paraphrase?
    Mr. Enright: Is the Minister further aware that the Charity Commissioners have consistently stated that moneys raised through charity cannot be used for statutory purposes in the health service? How does he square that circle?
    Dr. Mawhinney: There is no circle to square. The health service is better funded now than ever before. As the hon. Gentleman quoted to me, I will paraphrase to him. A pressure group suggested recently that total charitable funding amounted to £370 million. I do not know whether that is right, but if it is, it represents £1 for every £92 of taxpayers' money going towards the health of the nation. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should adopt such a mean attitude to the voluntary activities of the many people who want to put something back into a health service that they value.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While warmly welcoming the large sum of money raised from charitable sources for the national health service, can my hon. Friend assure the House that any such moneys that are raised either in districts or in regions will not be offset by reductions in money and resources from the Department of Health that would otherwise be made available for services or equipment to improve health care in this country?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend has a good point and I am happy to give that categorical assurance. In fact, I would go further. Whatever money is raised by charitable activities is neither known nor taken into account by the Department when it comes to deciding how much taxpayers' money should be invested in the health service.
    Ms. Lynne: Is the Minister aware of the tragic case of four-year-old Laura Davies, who is desperately in need of a bowel and kidney transplant which is not available in this country? The Manchester Evening News has mounted a campaign which we all welcome, but can the Minister say whether national health service money will be made available for that life-saving operation in the United States?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware of the case and I understand that discussions are proceeding to try to find a way to address that issue.
    Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that for very many years people have enjoyed raising charitable funds for the health service because it gives them a sense of being involved in their own health care? Is not that

    489
    wholly to be applauded, particularly as it frequently leads to the provision of capital equipment, the revenue consequences of which the NHS is then happy to take on?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People wish to make contributions to the health service for a variety of reasons—some out of gratitude for the service that they or their families have received, others out of humanitarian concern, others out of Christian compassion, and for many other reasons. Only the most mean-spirited Opposition Members find that objectionable.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Minister aware that the charities report to which he referred concluded that the growth in NHS charities under the Government has been five fold? Does not that trouble him in the slightest? Has he no worries when the collecting can goes round for intensive care cots? Has he no concern that services for mental health and geriatrics, which are not charitable money spinners, might be left further behind? In his first month as Minister for Health will he remember the warning of the first Minister for Health that warm gushes of self-indulgence are not a reliable source of funding for a public health service?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I shall remember. I shall remember a 56 per cent. real increase in spending on the NHS under this Government as against a 17 per cent. decrease under the last Labour Government. I shall remember a capital increase of 76 per cent. under this Government against a 29 per cent. decrease under the last Labour Government. I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will come out of character and not be one of those mean-spirited people who want to stop those who wish to make a contribution over and above that of the taxpayer from doing so.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the last year in the number of patients waiting over two years for hospital treatment.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am today publishing provisional waiting time figures for the year to 31 March 1992. They are available in the Library. I have arranged

    Provisional1 waiting time figures year ending 31 March 1992

    In–Patients and day cases combined

    March 1992—and percentage change since March 1991

    Region

    Under 1 year:

    1 to 2 years:

    Over 2 years:

    Total

    Number

    Per cent. Change

    Number

    Per cent. Change

    Number

    Per cent. Change

    Number

    Per cent. Change

    Northern

    53,292

    12·5

    3,992

    -15·2

    1

    -99·9

    57,285

    7·0

    Yorkshire

    63,196

    5·1

    6,422

    -23·9

    16

    -99·5

    69,634

    -2·9

    Trent

    76,229

    9·8

    9,281

    0·4

    4

    -99·7

    85,514

    6·9

    East Anglian

    36,326

    -0·7

    4,688

    -29·8

    41

    -98·8

    41,055

    -12·2

    North West Thames

    46,565

    -2·7

    9,160

    -11·6

    2

    -100·0

    55,727

    - 12·1

    North East Thames

    68,723

    6·1

    8,687

    -29·0

    748

    -88·7

    78,158

    -6·6

    South East Thames

    68,005

    8·7

    8,170

    -23·5

    96

    -98·5

    76,271

    -4·4

    South West Thames

    44,038

    6·6

    2,323

    -66·5

    0

    -100·0

    46,361

    - 7·8

    Wessex

    52,299

    6·4

    4,076

    -39·3

    0

    -100·0

    56,375

    - 4·5

    Oxford

    40,353

    6·9

    5,848

    -15·1

    0

    -100·0

    46,201

    - 2·9

    South Western

    62,916

    7·0

    2,766

    -72·7

    10

    -99·8

    65,692

    -10·4

    West Midlands

    84,392

    5·4

    5,452

    -53·8

    158

    -97·2

    90,002

    - 7·8

    Mersey

    49,653

    14·2

    428

    -85·0

    0

    N/A

    50,081

    8·1

    North Western

    77,020

    10·9

    6,772

    -30·5

    3

    -99·9

    83,795

    0·3

    All Regions

    823,007

    7·1

    78,065

    -33-5

    1,079

    -97,9

    902,151

    - 3·7

    for the figures to be printed in the Official Report. In the past year the number of patients waiting over two years for hospital treatment fell 97 per cent. That is a remarkable achievement of which the NHS can rightly be proud.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House will have been pleased to hear those figures? Will she tell the House what progress has been made in reducing the waiting lists in my district health authority of Hillingdon?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can give my hon. Friend that information. In his health authority, remarkable progress has been made. There are no two-year waiters. The total list has come down by 27 per cent. per year. The list for one to two-year waiters has gone down by 18 per cent. and the list for under one-year waiters has gone down by 9 per cent. My hon. Friend has a district health authority in a region which has done similarly well. In the past year it has dealt with more than 5,200 of the over two-year waiters and reduced the one to two-year waiters and the under one-year waiters. That is a practical demonstration of our commitment to a better health service which meets patients' needs.
    Miss Lestor: May I remind the Secretary of State that my constituent, Laura Davies—to whom the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) has already referred, without consultation with me—does not have two years or two months to wait for funding for her operation in America? I have written two letters to the right hon. Lady in the past two weeks asking what financial help is forthcoming in addition to the efforts being made in my constituency and around to raise money. Will the right hon. Lady tell me why she has not replied?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady will shortly receive a reply from me. I am having discussions with the regional health authority chairman and the chief medical officer. I regret the way in which individual cases become the subject of discussion in this place, because it is an intrusion on the personal difficulties and sadness of the families involved. I am well aware of the detail of the case, the complexity of the treatment that the patient needs and the treatment that she has already had in this country. I am having discussions to see what more can be done to assist her.
    Following is the information:

    March 1992—and percentage change since March 1991

    Region

    Under 1 year:

    1 to 2 years:

    Over 2 years:

    Total

    Number

    Per cent. Change

    Number

    Per cent. Change

    Number

    Per cent. Change

    Number

    Per cent. Change

    SHAs

    11,504

    15·7

    1,431

    0·0

    521

    -35·0

    13,456

    10·6

    Total

    834,511

    72

    79,496

    -33·1

    1,600

    -;96·9

    915,607

    -3·5

    1 Based on provisional figures obtained from regions.

    NHS Reforms
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria her Department uses in assessing the success of the implementation of the national health service reforms.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We measure the success of our health policies by the benefits that they are delivering to patients in terms of the improvement to the quality of service, reduction in waiting times, patient satisfaction and the overall improvement in the health of the nation.
    Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the fall in waiting times and the increase in the number of patients treated should be warmly welcomed? Has she noticed the change in the attitude of doctors and nurses towards the reforms in view of their demonstrable success? Does she think that it is about time that the Labour party changed its attitude?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I heartily agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. We have had a great deal of change in the health service recently. The results of those changes are already clear for all to see. I hope that the nurses and medical professionals will all work with us to ensure that we can build on those services.
    Since being made Labour's health spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has constantly made allegations about a hidden agenda, but he has been unable to prepare an agenda for himself. As the Health Service Journal commented only last week,
    "Defeat has left the Opposition flat-footed and its health policies irrelevant."
    It is time to build for the future and to build on the achievements in the service.
    Mr. Flynn: An important part of the health reforms is health promotion. Can the Minister explain why Imperial Tobacco gave 2,000 poster sites to the Conservative party in the election campaign? Does not that show why the Government are in the pockets of the tobacco industry? Or will the right hon. Lady disprove that by moving a motion to support the European ban on tobacco advertising?
    Mrs. Bottomley: We have seen another example of the way in which the Labour party constantly pursues vindictive vendettas. I have made the position quite clear. The fall in smoking in Britain has been greater than in any other country apart from the Netherlands. We have an effective system under the voluntary agreement. We do not support the subsidy for growing tobacco. We have maintained the price of tobacco and we do not have a nationalised tobacco industry. We should be judged on the result—a dramatic fall in smoking, which will continue—and not by the vindictive gimmicks of the Labour party.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Earth Summit
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister what are the specific objectives of Her Majesty's Government at the Earth summit.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): The Government's specific objectives for the Earth summit are signature of global conventions on climate change and biodiversity; a statement of principles on forests; a short "Rio declaration" of environment and development principles; a comprehensive action plan; and reinforcement of international institutions dealing with environment and development.
    Mr. Hughes: As that was the Prime Minister's first parliamentary answer, will he make it his No. 1 priority this Session to tackle the global environmental crisis? Is he aware that the secret documents that we have seen contain proposals which amount to a watering down of the tough energy-saving commitment and replace specific targets with vague promises, and are to be put to the European Commission tomorrow? Will the Prime Minister ensure that, at the Earth summit and thereafter, tackling the global crisis will be his priority and that of his colleagues on the world stage?
    The Prime Minister: This is an important conference—an important priority—and there is a great deal to be done. The political will is there, not just in this country but in countries around the world. It appears that the attendance at the Rio summit will be very high—and very high at Heads of Government level. I must emphasise that what is agreed at the conference is only the beginning of the work that needs to be done. Some people might set their expectations too high. There is bound to be a limited amount of success at Rio. There will be a good deal to be done subsequently in this country, in the European Community, and beyond.
    Mr. Lester: If my right hon. Friend gets a chance to watch television, I am sure that in the past two or three days, and certainly this month, he has noticed the beginning of the one world '92 campaign, linking 66 nations' broadcasters throughout Europe as well as the general public in preliminary matters to the Rio conference. On 30 May, it will culminate in a day of action throughout Europe and the tree of life, for which I am sure he has signed his pledge. Will he support all the work that is being done to involve the public in this issue because, however much we feel that it is important, without general public support we shall never get anywhere?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It needs a commitment by Governments, by which I mean Governments across the world. Little will be gained if

    493
    some contribute while many others do not. A great deal of commitment by individuals will also be necessary. This may be one of the areas of policy where it is often the individual driving the Government, rather than the reverse, in terms of commitment to the environment. I have little doubt that individuals in this country and beyond will commit themselves to these environmental and desirable aims.

    Engagements
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House the extent to which, in his own opinion, the Parliament of the United Kingdom should surrender sovereignty in the interests of European unity and what role he considers that a British monarch should play in influencing policy and opinion within the European Community?
    The Prime Minister: Influencing policy and opinion in the European Community at a political level is a matter for the politicians. That has been a long-established tradition and it remains the position. The position of the sovereignty of this House is a matter which we have discussed on many occasions. The sovereignty of this House is not a matter that is up for grabs—that is perfectly clear. What we have said is that there are areas where we can pool decision making in the general interests of the whole of Europe and in those circumstances it is right to pool decision making, but perhaps one of the most essential parts of the Maastricht agreement was the agreement on subsidiarity—that things must be done on a national level when they can best be done at a national level.
    Sir Anthony Grant: While recognising that miscarriages of justice are bound to take place from time to time and must be rectified, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no weakening in the attitude of the Government, of the police or of the courts in the relentless battle against terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Terrorism is one of the most wicked and evil problems faced by this Government and by Governments across the world. There will be no weakening in our determination to fight terrorism and no weakening in our determination to work with our European partners at a European level to fight terrorism.
    Mr. Kinnock: As the Prime Minister rightly says that he wants to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy, is that a principle that he will be applying to the financing of the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: The financing of the Conservative party is not a matter for the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that. I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: What representations has the Prime Minister made to President Bush to get the pilots of the A10 tank busters to submit themselves to the inquiry into the deaths of the nine service men killed by the so-called—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The matter with which the hon. Gentleman is dealing is sub judice. If he can rephrase his question, I will certainly hear him.
    Mr. Banks: The Prime Minister will recall in principle terms that President Bush gave assurances to the parents of the service men who were killed that the pilots would come over here for examination. Will he tell us what representations he has made to ensure that President Bush carries out those assurances?
    The Prime Minister: As I believe the House has been told on previous occasions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be drawing the families' letters to the attention of Mr. Cheney, the United States Defence Secretary.
    Mrs. Peacock: Now that my right hon. Friend has been returned to Downing street for a further five-year term, may I invite him—when he is planning his visits—to visit my constituency of Batley and Spen in Yorkshire where he will find much manufacturing prospering as it has been investing during the recession? He would be made most welcome on such a visit.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her invitation and it is certainly one which I shall hope to take up during the course of this Parliament. I share her view about the prospects for manufacturing industry and, in particular, for the new areas of manufacturing which have flourished so much in recent years and which are so often overlooked when people talk about manufacturing in the generality.
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunnachie: What pressure has the Prime Minister put on President Bush in relation to the British soldiers who were massacred in the friendly fire incident and to fulfil the promise to their relatives? Will he tell them why nothing has been done in that respect? What does he intend to do in the future to bring that sorry state of affairs to an end?
    The Prime Minister: I responded to that point a few moments ago, as the hon. Gentleman and the House heard. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that United States officials have discussed the handling of the evidence with the coroner, who has made it clear that he accepted the United States decision not to provide witnesses. That matter has been raised at the highest level with the American Government and Defence Secretary.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gill: As the first Conservative Member whose name appears on the Order Paper for the first Prime

    495
    Minister's Question Time of the new Parliament, may I convey the congratulations of all Conservative Members to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on leading our party to its unprecedented fourth election victory? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that his strongly anti-federalist stance was instrumental in securing that general election victory? In view of today's press reports, will he reassure the House that British sovereignty is not "insignificant"?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said a few moments ago, decisions need to be taken as close to the citizen as possible. That was the principle of subsidiarity that we fought for and obtained in the negotiations at Maastricht. Where the nature of a problem requires a European response, we believe that it should have a European response. That was the balance that we struck, and I believe that it was the right balance.
    Mr. Wigley: The Prime Minister has again emphasised the importance of the subsidiarity concept that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people. How will that be applied to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or is it a principle which starts in Brussels and ends in London?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are one United Kingdom and the Government are determined that we shall remain one United Kingdom.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous sense of pleasure, relief and hope in the future generated by our victory at the election under his leadership? [Interruption.] There are obviously some sour grapes on the Opposition side. Does my right hon. Friend agree that after another five years of Conservative Government, instead of this country's performance being measured by how fast we are catching up with Germany, for the first time in 100 years we shall be a model for others in respect of economic performance, enlightened administration of public services, and social peace and cohesion?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with him. We very much want wealth and welfare to go hand in hand, and I believe that the fear of the election of a Labour Government had been holding that back. Since polling day we have seen a dramatic
    496
    change in the confidence of the markets and individuals. Share values have risen by about a seventh, sterling is up, and interest rates have been cut by a further ½ per cent., bringing us almost level with German rates for the first time in a quarter of a century. That is good news for British industry, for British investment and, over time, very good news for British employment prospects.
    Mr. Cryer: As the Prime Minister is so complacent about British manufacturing industry and claims that there is much good news about, will he assure the House that he is not prepared in the GATT negotiations to sacrifice the textile industry to gain advantages on behalf of the farmers who have supported the Conservative party? Will he give an unqualified guarantee that he will fight to keep jobs in the British textile industry, as many thousands of jobs have been lost in the past years of Conservative rule? We want to keep that industry going in Bradford and elsewhere. Will he give that guarantee?
    The Prime Minister: What I have never understood in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about manufacturing is why he and his colleagues are always so keen to assume that British manufacturing industry is failing, doing unwell and needs special assistance and special subsidies to survive. The reality is that the United Kingdom share of world trade in manufactures rose in 1991 for the third successive year. Right across the country we have seen growth in areas of manufacturing industry which did not show signs of growth in earlier years.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent actions of Ofgas and Oftel to reduce prices still further show that the community charge has real teeth when it comes to protecting the interests of the consumer?
    The Prime Minister: The work of Ofgas and Oftel goes right to the heart of the citizens charter. The principles of those two regulatory bodies are important and the citizens charter underlines our commitment to put the consumer first. The regulators have achieved significant price cuts. British Telecom's prices have been cut by 27 per cent. in real terms, British Gas has cut domestic prices and standing charges, and the regulator is demanding more cuts. The impact of the citizens charter will continue to put the citizen in the forefront of people's minds when state prices are determined.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Four years ago the House—or certain members of it—voted by a majority for the Single European Act, which surrendered certain powers to European institutions. At the time the House did not believe that it had surrendered powers over immigration policy or the working week. Those powers are being hijacked and the European Community is cheating over the way in which it is trying to use such powers.
There will shortly be a debate about the ratification of the Maastricht treaty and various papers have been deposited. You will have seen from a letter in The Times yesterday from Lord Bruce that the papers which have been deposited—
Madam Speaker: Order. I insist on points of order relating to me and all hon. Members must come directly to the point. We will have no letters to The Times. Hon. Members must refer to the Chair and to my responsibilities.
Mr. Marlow: Indeed, Madam Speaker, and it is an important responsibility. The implication is that the document placed before the House is complex and full of annotations. The issues involved are massive, but it will be difficult for hon. Members to understand the gravity of those issues from reading that piece of paper. The paper could be attached to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill as one paper, so that hon. Members would know what was involved in the new treaty from one reading. Will you use your offices to ensure that anything that comes before the House, before legislation, is clear because I can assure you that at the moment it is not?
Madam Speaker: Of course that is a matter for the Government, but I shall certainly use my good offices if I am able to do so.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to have distressed you during Prime Minister's questions by causing you to intervene in what I was saying. Would you advise me and the House? The sub judice rule exists to ensure that nothing is said in the House which would prejudice someone's fair trial in court. I was not aware that an inquest was in the same category as a normal court of law hearing where someone was on trial. Will you clarify the position so that I do not make any further mistakes?
Madam Speaker: I would not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman and the House. I took a great deal of advice on the matter before coming to the Chair. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter was sub judice, otherwise I would not have interrupted.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Twice this afternoon the Prime Minister mentioned the concept of subsidiarity. Given the importance of that concept and the sovereignty of this place, will it be possible to allow the House to examine the concept of subsidiarity within the context of the United Kingdom Parliament in advance of the Maastricht debate?
Madam Speaker: That is a matter not for me but for business questions on Thursday, if the hon. Gentleman is lucky enough to catch my eye.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), may I, as a Member of Parliament who knows a family who lost a young man during the friendly fire incident, ask whether it will be possible for there to be a full debate on the issue in the House after the inquest, because the families are desperately keen to know the exact truth?
Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Lady's anxiety, but as a long-standing Member she knows that that is a matter to raise with the Leader of the House at business questions.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that, if you so determine it, hon. Members can ask questions on any subject, whether or not it is before a court or an inquest, and that the sub judice rule is used only as a guide and a convenience? Will you confirm that this House has the right at all times, if it so determines and if the matter is of importance, to comment although the issue may be before a court?
Madam Speaker: The Speaker has a degree of discretion. The question arising concerned which witnesses were to be called, and that is where the sub judice rule comes in.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As today a convicted killer escaped from Saughton prison in Edinburgh, and as yesterday a convicted killer escaped from Saughton prison, is it in order to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), to make a statement to the House?
Madam Speaker: That may well have been in order before noon, but it is certainly not in order at this time of day.
Mr. Tim Devlin rose—
Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that he has a point of order that I can deal with?
Mr. Devlin: Yes. I do not want to take up the House's valuable time, Madam Speaker, but will you confirm for the guidance of all Members of the House that Ministers are responsible for the conduct of the Government but not for the conduct of extra-parliamentary bodies, whether they be political parties or other organisations with which they may be associated?
Madam Speaker: I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman wishes me to confirm that. I do not know what the point of order is for the Chair. Perhaps he will elucidate, and then I shall know what he is talking about.
Mr. Devlin: During Question Time the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister a question about the conduct of the Conservative party, for which my right hon. Friend is not answerable in this House. Will you confirm that, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: In the cut and thrust of Question Time and debate there is often six of one and half a dozen of the other, and sometimes I have to turn a judicial deaf ear to what I hear coming from many quarters of the House.
Mr. Bruce Grocott rose—
Madam Speaker: We have had enough points of order to deal with today and we should now proceed with the business. Has the point of order just occurred to the hon. Gentleman or has he been rising?
Mr. Grocott: It is further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).
Madam Speaker: No; I have dealt with that

Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    Fifth Day
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6 May],
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
    Question again proposed.

Environment, Local Government and Education
Madam Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and that, again, the Members wishing to speak are oversubscribed, so speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm will be time limited to 10 minutes.
3.37 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
but humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no recognition of the proper role of local government and local democracy, no recognition of the scale of the housing crisis and no proposals to release local council capital receipts, no legislation to establish an Environmental Protection Agency and no measures to improve educational standards and opportunities, but instead represents a further series of measures to centralise power, weaken local democracy and extend privatisation which will undermine the quality and supply of local service provision and do nothing to fulfil the expectations raised by the Citizen's Charter.
Let me begin by offering my congratulations to you, Madam Speaker, on your richly deserved election to the Speakership of this House. You carry with you our highest hopes and confidence, and I should like to wish you every success in a long and successful Speakership.
Of all those with good reason to be dismayed by the outcome of the general election, local government has perhaps more reason than most to feel a sense of despair. The return of a Conservative Government means that more than a decade of unremitting hostility to local government from both Westminster and Whitehall is set to continue. Clearly, the Conservative party regards the public sector, not as a contributor to the national well-being, but as a constant drain on national resources, operating somewhere beyond the boundaries of the national economy, virtually a foreign, not to say an alien, territory.
There is no sense that the public sector has anything to contribute, no sense that its services are valued by those who depend on them or that it is a proper partner and support for the private sector. Instead, there has been nothing but antipathy not just to the public sector as a whole, but to local government in particular. That antipathy has meant a series of blows to local

501
government's powers, resources and morale, blows which for some authorities which proved to be unduly recalcitrant meant that they were simply abolished altogether. The blows, to the whole of local government, culminated in the disaster of the poll tax and the straitjacket of capping. The poll tax was in one sense a terrible mistake, but in another it was a deliberate act of malevolence which threatened the very existence, independence and autonomy of local government.
Those who have suffered from that unprecedented onslaught go far beyond the officers, councillors and work force who have dedicated their lives to local government. The real victims have been all those who depend on the services delivered by local government—the homeless, those waiting on swollen housing lists, those looking in vain for home helps, meals on wheels, nursery provision, those expecting decent schools for their children and those looking to local government to perform its traditional functions of guaranteeing clean air and freedom from pollution.
However, the damage has gone still further. It is the very concept of local government itself that has been the true victim of Tory hostility, and the whole of our democracy is the worse as a result. The sustained effort to undermine the independence of local government and to ignore the aspirations of the people of Scotland and Wales has meant that we are now the most centralised country in western Europe. A pluralistic system of government, in which a wide range of opinion could be represented, has given way to an elective dictatorship exercised from Whitehall and Westminster in which the winner takes all.
Local government itself has shown quite remarkable resilience and it is a considerable tribute to all those dedicated men and women that it has survived as well as it has done. However, it can hardly be surprising, in the face of that sustained attack from the Tories during the past decade, that the sense of the value of local government is now at a low ebb.
Over the past year or two, the Department of the Environment has suffered from what might be called the curse of the two Michaels. The first Michael, the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, was the great Heseltinian centraliser. He was the instigator of rate penalties, he was the inventor of urban development corporations, and he was the destroyer of the local authority housing programme. He is still at it—he has set up the urban renewal agency, designed to bypass local government, and appointed an unelected crony to run it for him. His one redeeming feature—his declared hostility to universal—poll tax capping did not survive his second stint at Marsham street. He quickly joined all those of his colleagues who endorsed what he once memorably described less than two years ago as an act of
"centralised power outside our experience."
Even the right hon. Gentleman can turn tail, or so it seems.
The second Michael, the ironically titled Minister for Local Government, was the arch defender of the poll tax. He was the man who told the Tory party conference that it would be a "rip-roaring success". He so supported the poll tax that he ensured that it lived on in the council tax.
The first Michael has gone off to the Department of Trade and Industry, where, no doubt, he will try to do for British industry what he very nearly did for local government—and, perhaps, that is the right way of putting it: he very nearly did for local government. It is doubtful
502
whether local government could have survived another Heseltinian term at Marsham street. No wonder that the leaders of British industry are now running for cover.
The second Michael has gone off to the Treasury as Chief Secretary, where he will no doubt demonstrate the same skills at managing the public finances which enabled him to preside over the £19 billion loss to the taxpayer as a consequence of the poll tax debacle. He is hardly the obvious person to carry credibility when he tries to crack the whip over wasteful public expenditure.
With what a heartfelt sigh of relief must local government and the Department of the Environment have seen the departure of the two Michaels; but with what despair must the realisation have dawned that a third Michael had been installed in their place. Indeed, it now seems inevitable that the very term "a Michael" is destined to serve the same pejorative purpose as "Wally" and "Herbert" do in other contexts.
This third Michael is in many respects even worse news than his predecessors and homonyms. This, after all, is a man with a record. This is the man whol guided the poll tax legislation through the House and who still apparently is able to recall that experience without visibly blushing. This is the inventor of the system of standard spending assessments which the whole of local government now regards as hopelessly complicated, unfair and unworkable, and which the chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has even today urged the new Secretary of State to modify—a system which had the great and unexpected merit of being able to discern that more snow was likely to fall in the borough of Brent than in the wastes of Cumbria.
This is the man who demonstrated the same tact and sympathy for local government when he was at Marsham street as he went on to show to the trade unions when he went to the Department of Employment—the man who, through his opposition to the minimum wage, demonstrated his touching faith in the proposition that our economic salvation lay in having the worst paid hairdressers in Europe.
This is the man who counted it a success at the Department of Employment to preside, month in and month out for all but three of the 27 months that he served, over an increase in the unemployment total and an increase in the economic failure and human misery which that figure represented.
This is the man who now returns to the scene of the poll tax crime and threatens to kill off local government for good. When local government desperately needs a builder and healer, it has been saddled with a Secretary of State who could not telephone the speaking clock without picking a quarrel with it.
We can expect more of the same, yet even the new Secretary of State might quail when he discovers what his predecessors have thoughtfully bequeathed to him by way of a replacement for the poll tax. The poll tax was unfair and unworkable, and there is unlikely to be one Conservative Member who would dispute that simple assertion. But the council tax threatens to outdo the poll tax on both counts. It retains all the worst features of the poll tax—the unfairness, the head count and the need to keep a register—but it throws in for good measure the doubts and difficulties of a totally untried property tax compounded by a botched valuation process.
I predict that the council tax will be to this Government what the poll tax was to the last. The anger of all those who

503
must suffer it will be all the greater when they realise that the Conservatives have refused to learn the poll tax lessons.
Then there is the problem of reorganisation. Undaunted by past Tory failures, the new Secretary of State will apparently press on with the proposals he has inherited, proposals which will mean that local government will be plunged into chaos and unprecedented confusion as a local government commission trundles its way around the country in a leisurely and piecemeal fashion for perhaps 10 or 15 years. At any time, local government in some parts of the country will be expected to remain dual in structure, whereas in others it might become at some time in the future—or it might already have become in the recent past—unitary in structure.
The Opposition agree that a simpler and more accountable structure for local government is desirable. We support the idea of a commission which will consult widely and take into account the variety of local interests and needs. But we have the gravest misgivings about a process which is manifestly designed to allow a partisan Secretary of State to abolish Labour-controlled county authorities while preserving those under Tory control.
The new Secretary of State is hardly helped in his task of grappling with this nightmare by the fact that the lieutenant with whom he has been saddled is a Thatcherite ideologue. It is a matter for regret and surprise that that lieutenant is not beside the Secretary of State on the Treasury Bench this afternoon. The new Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities is an heir to that decade-long Thatcherite tradition of regarding local councils as outposts of rebellion that have to be subjugated rather than legitimate guardians of local democracy and pluralism. He is hardly likely to restrain a Secretary of State from pursuing that Government's vendetta against local government.
In case we are tempted too far into gloom, there is a little light relief at hand. There is always the Prime Minister and his citizens charter, which we are reliably informed is to be relaunched yet again. It has already had more relaunches and come-backs in one year than Frank Sinatra has had in a lifetime.
The problem with the citizens charter is that, having thought up the title, the Prime Minister's powers of invention deserted him. Perhaps that is why he has asked the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to take responsibility for the matter. We are told that the right hon. Member for Bristol, West is not one who wears his learning lightly but is something of a philosopher. Just as Bishop Berkeley asserted that he could prove the existence of the tree in his garden even when he could not see it, so I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will prove, at least to his own satisfaction, that the citizens charter really exists, even though no one else doubts that it remains stubbornly lodged in the Prime Minister's imagination.
Whether real or imagined, no citizens charter can possibly produce the better-quality services and the more effective remedies that are promised if, at the same time, the public sector is constantly reviled, starved of resources and told that its only future lies in it being privatised. The citizens charter will remain a diversion from the real task.
504
The fact that it featured not at all in the recent election campaign shows just what the Prime Minister's colleagues really think of it. Until we have a Government who place a proper value on the public sector and on local government, the citizens charter will remain an ineffectual piece of paper.
I take the opportunity to affirm the Labour party's passionate belief that local government is essential to the efficient delivery of local services. It is essential to the accountability that local communities demand from Government. It is essential also as the properly pluralistic counterbalance to the overweening power of central Government. We shall do all in our power to sustain local government over the coming difficult years of continued Tory rule from Westminster.
It is not only local government that will suffer over the next four or five years. The Government's record on housing, education and the environment should alert us to what we should now expect in those areas. Housing is one of the most shameful failures on even this Government's blotchy record. Homelessness has soared, repossessions are at record levels, the housing market is in a slump, rents are being forced up by Government diktat, the number of houses built is the lowest in any peacetime decade this century, and the construction industry is in deep recession. Yet there is nothing in the Queen's Speech to suggest that the Government have the slightest intention of tackling any of these problems or have any inkling of their urgency.
There is not even a recognition of the absurdity of the restrictions imposed by Tory central Government on local authorities that have their own money by way of capital receipts, their own land, a clear housing need to meet and a clear political will to meet it. They are prevented by the Secretary of State, as they were by his predecessors, from building the houses that people so desperately need. This money does not have to be borrowed; it does not have to be raised by new taxation. It is money which already exists and which everyone in housing, in local government and in the construction industry agrees should be invested in meeting housing need. Only the Government remain outside that common-sense consensus.
There is nothing in the Queen's Speech to show that the Government recognise the pressing nature of the environmental problems that the country and the rest of the world face. The promise of a new environmental protection agency, the only constructive thing that the Prime Minister is ever known to have said on the subject of the environment, has been dashed by the publication of the Queen's Speech.
Mr. John Bowis: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of capital receipts, he will recall, as we do, that when the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made his proposal, which the hon. Gentleman is repeating today, he was slapped down by the shadow Chancellor. Is the hon. Gentleman taking a slap at his right hon. and learned Friend, or has there been a change in Labour party policy?
Mr. Gould: If the hon. Gentleman has risen to his feet to defend an arcane Treasury rule which stands between common sense and the nonsense that we have to endure now, I recommend that he re-examines that rule so as to ensure that money which exists, which local authorities

505
want to spend on housing and for which there is a clear housing need is spent for that purpose under prudent conditions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Would it not make much more sense to use the capital receipts to put roofs over the heads of the homeless than to bail out, as the Department of the Environment and the President of the Board of Trade are doing, a broken-backed Canadian company, run by the Reichmann brothers—Olympia and York? The Government intend to transfer large sums of taxpayers' money to that Maxwell-type company, which owes !12 billion to the banks. This tawdry Government would sooner bail out that corrupt organisation than allow Labour-controlled local authorities to build houses to put roofs over the heads of the homeless.
Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is quite remarkable that the white knight who appears to be riding to the rescue to help with the cash flow problems of Olympia and York is not only the same person who initiated the London Docklands development corporation and who invested so much of his reputation in its success; he also happens to be the recently departed Secretary of State of one Government Department and the current Secretary of State of another which are both apparently contemplating paying large sums in rent to Olympia and York for otherwise unlettable office space. My hon. Friend has done the House a service by bringing this issue to light this afternoon.
As I was saying, the Prime Minister's promise that we should have an environmental protection agency was dashed as soon as we saw the text of the Queen's Speech. The Bill to set up such an agency is significantly missing from the legislative programme. We are left by way of an environmental agenda for the new Secretary of State only with the familiar spectacle of a Secretary of State protesting his virtue in public on issues such as global warming but working behind the scenes to support a reactionary United States Administration whose main purpose seems to be to frustrate any effective action. The new Secretary of State will have to make a strong break from the limitations imposed by his predecessors if he is to establish his green credentials and pursue real achievement on the environmental agenda.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the results being produced by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as a result of satellite observations are casting serious doubt on the concept of global warming and that that is why the President of the United States is taking one step back from precipitous action and expenditure which could seriously damage the industries in his country?
Mr. Gould: I fear that the hon. Lady's outfit is the only green thing about her. The truth of the matter is that she and, perhaps, who knows, President Bush are members of a tiny minority which flies in the face of the overwhelming bulk of scientific evidence collected through the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change which shows beyond all doubt that we would be stupid in the interests not only of future generations but of our own generations if we were to ignore the precautionary principle and failed to give the environment the benefit of the doubt. The doubt is being extinguished day by day as we learn the lessons of global warming, ozone depletion
506
and acid rain. It is regrettable that the hon. Lady should use her position on the Back Benches to deny what is now, I think, universally accepted by reputable scientists.
This is the Queen's Speech of a Government who have nothing to offer by way of new ideas and who have, therefore, fallen back on old prejudices and bad habits. It is the Queen's Speech of a Government who are incapable of learning lessons from past failures, who are prepared to contemplate with a stony face and an equally stony heart the misery of the victims of their policies, who continue to give priority to their own ideological shackles rather than the human plight of the homeless and the disadvantaged.
Life will be very hard during the next four years under this Government for all those whose interests are habitually ignored by the Government. Life will be hard for those who look to good quality public services for the homes and schools on which they and their families depend. Life will be hard for those who want to see a vibrant local government and a truly effective democracy.
We pledge ourselves in opposition to fight the fight for all those people and to assure them that our aim is nothing less than a Labour Government who, unlike this Government, will defend the interests of those people and will serve the whole community.
4.2 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): I add my welcome, Madam Speaker, to the many that you have already received on being elected to your great office. It is with some relief that I have discovered that as from 1 April responsibility for your accommodation passed from the Property Services Agency, and, therefore, my Department, to the House of Commons Commission. In the unlikely event of there being any complaints, I emphasise that it is to the commission that they should henceforth be addressed.
My delight at speaking from this Dispatch Box for the first time as Secretary of State for the Environment is enhanced by the presence on the Opposition Front Bench of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). It is a long time since we last crossed swords in the House, but I have never ceased to admire the subtlety with which the hon. Gentleman: has manoeuvred through the delicate shifts in position that he has been seeking to make during the past few weeks.
In the early hours of Friday morning, after the local election results were known, the hon. Gentleman excelled himself. Desperately looking for crumbs of comfort, he said of his party's performance, "At least it gives us a low base from which to recover in a few years' time." I make this offer to the hon. Gentleman: I am fully prepared to work with him over the years to help him and his party to achieve a lower and lower base from which they can seek to make ever more spectacular recoveries in the dim and distant never-never land.
We heard an interesting speech from the hon. Gentleman this afternoon. I am not sure quite how much good it will do his leadership bid. The most significant point in it came when he totally evaded the pertinent question on capital receipts put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). We know of the sharp difference in view which emerged during the general election campaign between the hon. Gentleman's team and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who, fortuitously, has just left the Chamber.

507
I am prepared to give the hon. Member for Dagenham another opportunity to answer my hon. Friend's question, or to answer an even simpler question. Given that the Opposition amendment places such emphasis on capital receipts, why is it that it is not signed by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East? Is that difference of view still continuing, or is it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot bring himself to put pen to paper next to his rival for the Labour leadership—the hon. Member for Dagenham? I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, to allow him to answer any of those questions.
The Gracious Speech emphasised the importance that the Government attach to the protection of our environment. No issue is more crucial to our future. It needs to be addressed at all levels—local, national, regional and global. Within the Government, the responsibility for addressing environmental issues, at all levels, rests with my Department. That is no accident of administration. The decision to bring those elements of the machinery of government together in one Department was taken in 1970, during the run-up to the Stockholm conference. That decision has stood the test of time.
In exercising those responsibilities, I shall be guided by three principles—opportunity, responsibility and partnership. When our debate was opened last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke of the need to maintain a country in which everyone may realise his or her aspirations—everyone. There can be no forgotten few—nor can there be any exclusion zone in our inner cities or on any of our housing estates; no no-go areas where the writ of opportunity does not run.
This evening, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will talk about the opportunity for people to choose where to send their children to school. We must also extend and enhance the opportunity for people to choose and own their homes; to gain access to effective public services, efficiently delivered; and to enjoy a local neighbourhood environment that is not blighted by a pall of neglect—neglect that has often been the hallmark of so many of the inner city areas controlled by councils run by the Labour party.
As we offer opportunity, we must encourage responsibility. Ultimately, those whose aspirations remain unrealized—and those who are not always able to formulate their aspirations—must accept some responsibility themselves. Government can provide the framework—the people themselves must make the most of the opportunities that arise.
That is one of the elements of the partnership that we seek to provide: partnership between public and private sectors, central and local government, and the business community and voluntary organisations—above all, partnership with the people who have felt left out of opportunity, and whom we must bring within its reach.
We cannot and we shall not accept as permanent features of our society the degradation that has disfigured the physical environment and the very lives of so many of our fellow citizens.
Mr. David Blunkett: I am surprised that the Secretary of State does not choke on his own words. Perhaps he will explain how local communities are meant to exercise responsibility when 86 per cent. of their local services funding comes direct from the
508
Department of the Environment and the remaining 14 per cent. is also determined by the Government, through the capping regime. How are those who were elected last Thursday expected to exercise their responsibilities and to provide opportunities when the Secretary of State determines their finance, legislation and virtually every action?
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman will show a little more patience, he will have an answer to his question. It is astonishing that Labour now seeks to criticise the Government for the proportion of local government spending that is provided from central funds. Year after year, when that proportion was diminishing, we were criticised for providing less money to local government from central funds. Now that we have made a substantial increase in the proportion provided by central Government, we are being criticised on precisely those grounds. The Opposition had better at least start to get their act together, and introduce some semblance of consistency into their criticisms.
There is nothing inevitable about the decline of the inner city. Just as we can all be sucked into a cycle of decline, so too it is possible to create a virtuous circle leading to opportunity and prosperity. Much has already been done. Through the establishment of urban development corporations, task forces, city action teams, housing action trusts and programmes such as estate action and city challenge, we have made a difference. More needs to be done, however: not by instructing the people who live in such areas what to do; not by taking decisions away from local people; but by involving, engaging and empowering them—by giving the people more power and responsibility over their own lives. That is at the heart of our approach.
The programme outlined in the Gracious Speech represents only the first stage in a series of measures that will extend throughout the current Parliament. The housing, land and urban development legislation represents another important step forward in the Government's strategy for revitalising the inner cities. Its centrepiece is the proposal for the creation of an urban regeneration agency. I am delighted that Peter Walker has agreed to become the agency's first chairman if Parliament approves the measure. The fact that a man of his stature has been chosen is a clear signal of the great importance that the Government attach to the work that the agency will carry out.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does the Secretary of State agree that the 10 years of operation of the enterprise zone in my constituency should be subjected to an inquiry and evaluation? Nearly £3 billion of public funds has gone into the area in the form of direct and indirect subsidies, but fewer than 3,000 jobs have been created. My constituents have been subjected to the delights of the totally inefficient docklands light railway, and, now, to the tottering financial tower of Canary wharf. Should not an evaluation be carried out to see whether we have been given value for money?
Mr. Howard: I do not think that many people would recognise the figures provided by the hon. Lady. Many more jobs have been created than the number that she gave. If she wishes to make any assessment of the value that is attached to enterprise zones, she need only talk to people in all parts of the country—including those in

509
Labour-controlled local authorities—who are only too enthusiastic about the establishment of enterprise zones in their areas. I do not think that the hon. Lady's view of enterprise zones would obtain universal or general support.
Mr. Skinner: Can we get one or two things straight? Olympia and York—that busted flush of a company, now !12 billion in debt—is now looking for a lifeline. Through the Secretary of State and the President of the Board of Trade, the Government are going to hand out a lifeline to a company that is gasping for financial breath.
I want an assurance from the Secretary of State today that the Government will not hand out any taxpayers' money to Olympia and York by transferring offices to Canary wharf. If they do, they should be surcharged, just as any Labour authority would be surcharged for spending an excessive amount. It is high time that the Government came clean, because the affair stinks to high heaven.
Mr. Howard: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that any decison made by my Department, or by any other Department, about the relocation of civil servants will be made on strict value-for-money grounds. We have been advised that the best value for money that is currently available can be found in docklands—not necessarily on Canary wharf, but in docklands—and we are looking for accommodation there; but, as I have said, our decision will be made on strict value-for-money grounds. If the hon. Gentleman's request for an assurance was at all serious, he would recognise that such an assurance has now been given.
Mr. Gould: The House will have listened with great attention and not a little unease to the Secretary of State's weasel words. Will he confirm what I imagine he meant to convey but did not have the courage to make explicit—that his Department is looking for office space in docklands and that it is negotiating with Olympia and York to rent office accommodation from that company? If the answer to that question is yes, or even if it is not quite a "yes", will he enlighten us as to which other Government Departments are contemplating a similar relocation?
Mr. Howard: There is absolutely no mystery about this matter. Everybody knows that the building which is occupied by my Department in Marsham street is to be demolished—a decision of my predecessor which I enthusiastically support and endorse. I do not know anybody who has the misfortune to work in that building who has any doubts about it. That means that we have to look for accommodation for a large number of people who at present work in Marsham street. We shall make our decision on the basis of the best value for money available, and no other consideration. We are at present considering a number of offers of accommodation that have been made to us, including offers of accommodation elsewhere than at Canary wharf and other than that owned by Olympia and York, but the properties on offer certainly include some owned by Olympia and York. We shall look at all those offers and make our decision on a strict value-for-money basis.
Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for at least carrying us to the point where we now know that one of the offers being considered is that made by Olympia and York for accommodation at Canary wharf. The Secretary of State has said several times that the real consideration
510
will be value for money. However, he must surely also take into account the whole question of administrative efficiency and the location of a Government Department close to the other centres of power in Whitehall.
Is the Secretary of State saying that for the purposes of locating his Department at Canary wharf—one of the offers that he is contemplating—he is prepared to divide his Department so that a substantial number of people go off to docklands while, presumably, he and his ministerial colleagues and senior civil servants remain here in Westminster? If that is what is being contemplated, why does he not say now that the whole business is too inconvenient and cumbersome, that docklands is not an appropriate location for a Government Department and that he will be looking for accommodation here in Westminster? Why is he not prepared to take that view?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman ought to ponder for a moment before he makes so crass an intervention as that. It has been part of Government policy for years that civil servants should be relocated from Westminster. The hon. Gentleman has just intervened to make a point about the administrative inconvenience of split Departments. The Department in which I served until a month ago, the Department of Employment, has many civil servants in Sheffield. I thought that that approach was supported by the Labour party and that Labour Members of Parliament with Sheffield constituencies were keen for that to continue. Does the Labour party now propose that we can communicate with people in Sheffield from Westminster but that we could not communicate with people in docklands? What an absurd proposition. One minute the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) gets up and protests that there are not enough jobs in docklands and the next minute the hon. Member for Dagenham gets up and says that all of them should be kept in Westminster. What a shambles. What an utter disgrace. What utter rubbish and nonsense comes from the Opposition Front Bench.
Ms. Gordon: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Howard: No, I do not intend to give way again.
I intend to refer now to the urban regeneration agency which we shall put in place. The case for the creation of the agency is crystal clear. There are about 150,000 acres of vacant land in English urban areas, about half in public ownership. Not all of this is usable, but about 65,000 acres have previously been developed—an area five times the annual change from agricultural to urban use in England.
Dereliction, fragmented ownership, lack of information to owners and poor site conditions and access often mean that that land is difficult to market. But it presents great opportunities, once the potential has been unlocked. The time has now come to unlock this potential and seize these opportunities. I have no doubt that the agency will have the capacity to improve enormously the environment of the people living in many parts of our inner cities. It will bring new housing, new jobs and new hope to the people who live there.
The agency will bring together existing programmes for the development of land and enable them to be much more effectively focused. It will work in partnership with local authorities and the private sector to provide them with a single contact point. It will be able to give grants to them to bridge the gap between development costs and resale value. It will also be able to develop land itself.

511
I want the agency to work closely with local authorities. I hope that they will regard it as a source of expertise and capacity to help them realise the potential of their inner cities. The people who live in our inner cities are their most important resource. I want those local people to feel that the agency is working to create new opportunities for them.
Mr. Blunkett: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: I have given way far too often and I must press on.
That is why the agency will work closely with the training and enterprise councils to ensure that as many local people as possible obtain jobs in the construction phase and during the later commercial use of the land.
Mr. Blunkett rose—
Mr. Howard: I shall give way for the last time.
Mr. Blunkett: This is the first opportunity that the House has had to question the Secretary of State and his Ministers on the urban regeneration agency and it is the first opportunity that we have had to ask questions about things such as where the grants to which the Secretary of State referred will come from. From which existing heading are the grants to be diverted? Are the development corporations, the enterprise zones and the plethora of other measures to be subsumed under the urban regeneration agency?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will have many opportunities, commencing tomorrow, to ask detailed questions about the agency. The existing urban development corporations will not be brought within the ambit of the agency. However, the agency will be able to focus much more precisely, effectively and in a targeted way many of the funds that we presently use in our efforts to regenerate the inner cities.
Mr. Anthony Steen: As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, I have been campaigning for about 15 years—[Interruption.]—or longer for the release of vacant public land and I welcome the agency. It is one of the best things that I have heard about for a long time. Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to the House whether the agency will confiscate public land or market it? Will it be able to give value to the public authorities for the land that it takes? Will its operations apply to private land, because a great deal of private land is vacant, dormant and derelict?
Mr. Howard: The agency will have marketing powers, it will be able to give value for the value for the land that it acquires and it will have powers of compulsory acquisition. I hope that I have answered all the pertinent points put by my hon. Friend, whose long interest in this matter—I shall not become involved in the precise period over which it has extended—I recognise and have welcomed.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I have some derelict land in my constituency, but it is
512
contaminated. Is there any plan to bring forward the contaminated land register, which is hanging like a sword of Damocles over a great deal of land?
Mr. Howard: Derelict land grant is and will continue to be available. I hope that it will assist my hon. Friend in dealing with the problem in his constituency.
The Bill will also provide new rights and opportunities to both council and private tenants. As the right to buy has so convincingly demonstrated, one important consequence of giving people more say over their own lives is an improvement in the most local environment of all—the property in which people live and its immediate surroundings. That in turn raises the morale of everyone living there.
We have been convinced for some time that a large number of council tenants would like to have the benefit of home ownership but cannot afford the financial commitment. That is why we set up pilot rent-to-mortgage schemes in Scotland, Wales, Basildon and Milton Keynes. The response has been encouraging. In our manifesto, we promised to extend this opportunity to the whole country. Council tenants will be given a new right to buy a stake in their homes for no more than they currently pay in rent. They will be able to increase their stake whenever they wish, moving gradually to full ownership.
I very much hope that the Labour party will not repeat the mistake that it made in 1980 in opposing the right to buy. It will be up to individual tenants to decide whether they wish to take up this new opportunity, and what possible objection can there be to giving them the chance to say yes or no, unless of course Labour Members still have a wish, rooted in political dogma, to see them remaining council tenants for ever.
We want to extend to long leaseholders the opportunity of full ownership and independence from landlords. I pay tribute to the powerful advocacy of my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), who deserve much credit for championing the cause of so many of their constituents.
The Bill will give most long leaseholders of flats the collective right to buy the freehold of their block at market price. Those not eligible will instead be able to buy a renewed long lease, again at market price. We considered the existing rateable value restrictions on the enfranchisement of leasehold houses and concluded that there was no logical reason for retaining them. They will therefore be abolished.
The Bill does not neglect those who wish to remain as council tenants. The existing right-to-repair scheme, introduced in 1980, has proved too cumbersome and complicated. The Bill gives tenants a straightforward right to get repairs done privately and send councils the bill where councils fail to carry them out within a reasonable time. I hope that that will be widely welcomed on both sides of the House.
Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Howard: I am sorry. I have given way many times and must get on.
I hope, too, that it will be widely accepted that when we change the rights of tenants in the ways that I have described, and the rights of parents in the ways that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will describe later in the debate, we are not attacking local

513
government. It should be the servant of its citizens, not the promoter of its own interests. It has, and will continue to have, a vital role in spending about £40 billion a year. But that role should be an enabling role. There are marry ways in which the local services that people need can be delivered. Local management of schools is one example. Competitive tendering ensures a choice of providers. Free from the responsibility of running a large work force, local authorities can concentrate on ensuring that local people get a high quality service.[Interruption.] Exactly. Effective monitoring of standards is essential. That task is made easier for local authorities if they are not providing the service themselves.
I understand the revolution in attitudes that is required of local authorities to fulfil such a role, but the importance of local government does not, and should not, flow from the extent to which it provides services direct to the public. There is no reason why a local council should not take great pride in a job well done, whether or not its work force carried it out—indeed, even if its work force did not do so.
If that enabling role is to be discharged effectively, it is essential that local government should be responsive, that it should not be remote from those whom it seeks to serve and that there should be clarity about its responsibilities. That is why we are reviewing its structure. The objective of the review will be to find the structure that is the best for each part of the country—the structure that most closely reflects the views and needs of the people for whose benefit local government exists.
It is right that cost-effectiveness should be an important consideration. In that light, I expect to see a move towards more unitary authorities, but I have no blueprint. I see no reason why there should not be, and every reason why there should be, diversity. Local government should see the review as a challenge rather than a threat. It is up to individual local authorities to make the case to their communities for a particular form of structure. The best way in which they can do so is by demonstrating efficiency and quality of service. I hope that local government acts in that spirit.
I hope, more generally, that we shall see a new partnership between central and local government. In the past, that relationship has not always been one of total harmony. I dare say that it will not be possible to avoid controversy altogether in the future, but I hope that we can keep it to a minimum.
The very first people I asked to see were the leaders of the local authority associations. I have suggested—and they have agreed—that we should meet informally on a regular basis. I hope that we shall be able to work together in the interests of the people whom we have been elected to serve.
My Department has responsibilities which touch on the quality of our environment at all levels—local, national, regional and global. I have set out how the proposals in the Gracious Speech will help to improve the quality of our environment at the most local level of all—people's homes and their immediate neighbourhood—but we need to address those issues at all levels and we need to make sure that we do so in the right context. Any serious attempt to improve environmental standards needs investment. If we are to invest we must earn, and if we are to earn—as a nation and as a planet—we must be successful economic managers.
The economy and the environment are not on opposite ends of a see-saw, with one able to rise only at the expense
514
of the other. They are interdependent. We can create a high quality environment only if we build a high quality economy. The key is sustainable growth and that is what we must achieve.
This is a Government whose words are a prelude to action, not a substitute for action. Barely a single month has passed since we were re-elected, yet in that short time we have already announced new commitments of our own on climate change, helped to persuade the Americans to make comparable commitments, played a central role in the final round of the negotiations on the climate change convention in New York and committed $1 million to the international effort to support the non-governmental side of the earth summit.
The earth summit, which will take place in Rio de Janeiro next month, is a unique opportunity and it must not be squandered. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first national leader to make a firm commitment to attend. That is why we have now made clear our own intention to return our emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by the year 2000. That is why we have made it clear that, provided others play their part, we are prepared to commit new and additional resources to replenish the global environment facility.
We believe that the earth summit marks the opening of a new phase in the environment and development debates.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: No, I cannot give way.
No conference, whatever its success, solves problems; it simply charts the course. It is what happens afterwards that really matters. In taking on the presidency of the European Community immediately after the earth summit, we will have a unique opportunity to get the follow-up to Rio off to a good start. We have clear and ambitious goals and we shall continue our policies to improve the quality of our national environment.
Britain's first ever White Paper on environmental policy, "This Common Inheritance", puts us among only four or five nations in the world which have produced a comprehensive policy on the environment. One of its central accomplishments was to set up a rigorous system for monitoring and reviewing on an annual basis the development of our environmental strategy. We have already published one report on the implementation of that strategy. In October, we shall publish a second report and we shall continue to publish reports every year. In addition, we shall be publishing in the autumn a statistical report on the environment, enabling everyone to monitor for himself or herself any improvements—or deterioration—that may take place.
We are examining the results of our consultation process on the shape of the environment agency and will shortly announce our preferred option. Drafting of the Bill will then proceed so that we can take immediate advantage of the earliest legislative opportunity. Meanwhile, the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which the Government established, will continue their excellent work of preventing pollution of the environment.
Protecting the environment and fostering sustainable development are not tasks only for Government. Many others have a part to play—business men, local authorities, scientists and the voluntary sector—and that is

515
why we have sought to involve them more closely in the development of our environmental policy through the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment and similar groups and by involving them in our delegations to international meetings. However, it is the ordinary citizen and consumer who have perhaps the most important part to play, for, ultimately, the fate of our environment—locally and for the planet as a whole—rests on the individual choices that we all make. It is the duty of Government to provide a clear and comprehensive framework of law within which those choices can be made and to build powerful institutions to insist on the implementation of those laws.
No Government could possibly claim to have done all that was needed to protect or improve the environment, but I am confident that we have put the United Kingdom on a trajectory of constant effort and achievement in improving environmental standards. Care for the environment will be in the forefront of all our policies. I pay tribute to the work of my predecessors. I take up the torch with enthusiasm.
4.34 pm
Ms. Anne Campbell: I congratulate you most warmly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I wish first to refer to Sir Robert Rhodes James, who was my immediate predecessor as Member for Cambridge. He was well known for his enlightened views on higher education and for his excellence as a political historian and biographer. He championed the cause of students and was unafraid to oppose the policies of his Government when his conscience dictated. He was a courteous man who helped many people in difficulties, and he will be remembered as a man of integrity.
I suppose that many right hon. and hon. Members believe that they know the constituency of Cambridge. Many will recall hazy memories of their student lives in Cambridge: rolling lawns, high tables, political games in the union debating chamber, garden parties, punting to Grantchester,
"And is there honey still for tea?"
Judging by the condition of many hon. Members, there still is—and much more besides.
There is another side to Cambridge, however, about which hon. Members will know little from their student days. For many of my constituents, the harsh reality of Cambridge is a city with rising unemployment, chronic housing shortages, and poverty just below the surface. Increasing numbers of young people sleep rough and many old people live in fear of being unable to pay their bills. Students are being driven out of further and higher education by inadequate financial support. Single parents are denied grants for basic necessities. Nearly 17,000 households in Cambridge are in receipt of income support, including 5,400 pensioners and 2,500 single-parent families. One in four households in Cambridge is in receipt of some kind of means-tested benefit.
Cambridge has a low wage economy with at least one in 10 of the work force covered by the wages councils, on minimum hourly rates of between £2·66 and £3·06. Many of the people who make the beds, clean the rooms and serve the meals of future Cabinet Ministers are paid pitiful
516
wages—how well they serve those people in their youth, and how quickly they are forgotten once university life is left behind.
The Queen's Speech acknowledges the existence of poverty in foreign parts, but, judging from their record, the Government will do precious little about that—and their programme for this Session of Parliament fails even to recognise the existence of poverty in this country. Are the Government so ashamed of the poverty that their policies have created that they dare not admit that there is poverty in our land? Do they intend to do nothing about the social fund even though they are aware that the resources allocated to the fund are totally inadequate?
In Cambridge, 70 per cent. of high priority applications to the social fund are turned down because of the meagre cash limit on the fund. Families with children, as well as pensioners and homeless people, continue to have claims for essential items such as sleeping bags and winter coats turned down by the Cambridge benefits office. Last year, the local district manager of the social fund had an application for an increase in funds turned down without any proper reason. This year, the local manager—whose area includes the Prime Minister's constituency—is again pessimistic, believing that his pleas for more funds will fall on deaf ears.
The Government are imposing severe financial hardship on increasing numbers of students. Bit by bit, the Government have eaten away at student financial support. By failing to increase grants in line with inflation throughout the 1980s, and by introducing top-up loans, the Government have made students into a new group of debtors. Through loss of entitlement to housing benefit and income support, the Government have made survival virtually impossible for many students. Then they abolished the vacation hardship allowance, causing poverty among students on an unprecedented scale. Their measures hit students in areas such as Cambridge—which has high rents—particularly hard, and there is worse to come.
The Government's failure to increase funding for institutions of higher education in Cambridge in line with inflation has meant that many colleges are making up the shortfall by swingeing rent increases which students have no new resources to pay. A number of colleges in Cambridge are already planning to increase room rents by 25 per cent. in real terms in the next two to three years.
The result of all those measures has been an increasing drop-out rate from institutions of higher education, owing to financial hardship. The introduction of the so-called access fund has been totally inadequate to counteract the devastating effects of the Government's other policies on higher education. However, it is not only the drop-out rate which gives cause for concern, but also the welfare of students, who are desperately trying to continue their studies against all odds.
In December 1991, a student from Homerton college in Cambridge was hospitalised owing to an infection of the liver, kidneys and intestines. In probing the source of the infection, the general practitioner was appalled at the conditions in which the student was living. There was no central heating, there were damp walls and the student had clearly not been eating adequately. The senior tutor at Homerton college has written that the situation uncovered by the GP was fairly typical of many of his students—what an indictment of Government policy that is.

517
What do the Government intend to do about poverty wages? Far from eliminating them, it is suggested that the Government will make the situation even worse by abolishing the wages councils, which at least prevented the inadequate rates of pay in many industries from falling even lower. The Low Pay Unit has estimated that the floor for pay after the abolition of the wages councils could be as low as £2 per hour. Is that really an acceptable level of reward for work in a civilised society?
The Government's low wages policy has created a poverty trap for so many families. Last year I took up the case of a father of five with a mortgage to pay who had lost his job. He found a new post, which paid £2·66 per hour—a net £95 per week. After paying mortgage interest and receiving child benefit and family credit, he would have been left with £42 to feed, clothe and support his family. Understandably, the man did not take the job because with income support and child benefit he previously received £138·50 per week and the Department of Social Security paid his mortgage interest. However, because he refused the job, his unemployment benefit was stopped for 20 weeks. What kind of encouragement to seek employment is that?
The poverty trap does not exist only for the unemployed. Many pensioners who are just above the income support level find it hard to survive. They have been especially hard hit by the poll tax and by the effects of privatising the water industry. Water rates in Cambridge have raced ahead of inflation. Since the abolition of water rate rebates in 1988, average bills in Cambridge have increased by 72 per cent. to £208. That particularly affects single pensioners living alone. The secretary of the Office of Water Services, Ofwat, eastern customer services committee has recently expressed concern that pensioners are going without food so that they can pay their bills.
The Government have no plans to tackle the problems of poverty in our country. Government Ministers use the language of equality, a classless society, a nation at ease with itself, to hide the fact that their policies are creating an ever more divided and unequal society. Their words are new-speak designed to enable the Government to avoid facing up to the truth.
I come to the House from a constituency where the Labour party was established 80 years ago, founded on the principles of social justice and equality. And how greatly our society needs those guiding principles today. I am the third Labour Member of Parliament for Cambridge, and the first woman Member. I follow in the footsteps of two men of high principle, Leslie Symonds, who was elected in 1945, and Robert Davies, who was elected in 1966 and whose political career was tragically cut short by his death in 1968. At his funeral Mr. Stan Newens, then Member for Epping, said:
"Robert Davies saw the Labour movement as a crusade for a new and better society, and he devoted himself to it without counting the cost—which was eventually his life. Any community owes a great debt to men like Robert, and his humanity, tolerance, self-sacrifice and devotion to others was a vital contribution to the Labour movement, Cambridge affairs and British politics."
No Labour Member of Parliament could wish for a finer epitaph.
I shall serve all the people of Cambridge and my country to the best of my ability, but I make no apology for bias towards the underprivileged. Cambridge elected a Labour Member of Parliament because we recognised the
518
other side of the city of Cambridge, which the Government chose to ignore. We sought to understand the problems of the underprivileged and to reach out to them through our campaigning on the doorstep and by working on their behalf.
I feel enormously proud to have been entrusted to represent the people of Cambridge. I am equally dismayed that we should have a Government who care so little about social justice, but Labour has never underestimated the scale of the task necessary to build a fairer society. Although we are disappointed at the result of the general election, we do not give up—there are too many people in our society whose future welfare depends on us even to contemplate such a course of action. Not least among those are many of my constituents. After 24 years without effective representation, at last they have a voice.
4.46 pm
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: First, I congratulate Madam Speaker on her election to her high office and wish her every success in the many difficult decisions which she will have to make while presiding over our affairs. Secondly, may I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and wish you well in the Chair.
Thirdly, it is a great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Ms. Campbell) on her maiden speech. She paid a generous tribute to her predecessor, Mr. Robert Rhodes James, whom many of us in the House held in the highest regard. She referred to his integrity and his distinction as an historian. Indeed, he made an important contribution to the work of the House and her kind remarks in that respect are greatly appreciated. The convention that maiden speeches should be uncontroversial is perhaps more honoured in the breach than in the observance nowadays, but I think that the House will recognise the hon. Lady's strength of feeling on the social issues to which she referred, and we shall look forward to hearing her on many future occasions.
Perhaps it is appropriate on the first Queen's Speech of a new Parliament to take stock. The status of the House has not changed greatly during the past quarter of a century, but clearly considerable changes may come into prospect since on the one hand the House is subject to claims for devolution of power to various parts of the United Kingdom, while on the other it faces the danger of a transfer of powers to European institutions. That combination may mean that the nature of the House may change in future years, perhaps in the not-too-distant future.
Therefore, I was much reassured by the speech on the Loyal Address by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he made clear his position on devolution and on Europe. It is reassuring that the outcome of the Maastricht negotiations was so successful from Britain's point of view. The fact that we obtained an opt-out clause which met this country's requirements was satisfactory, not least with regard to control over fiscal policy. Indeed, it would seem that many other European countries and Heads of State elsewhere are rather sorry that they did not follow our advice. However, the fact that we wrote our own opt-out clause gave us some discretion which we would not have had if there had been a general opt-out clause. In all events, that is important. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will recognise, the principle of subsidiarity is extremely important for

519
environmental matters. On the one hand there is often a case for a European approach to protecting the environment, but on the other some environmental issues should be decided in the United Kingdom and not in Brussels or elsewhere in Europe.
There has been some debate in the press today about the diversity of parliamentary systems. I hope that as we come to assume the Presidency of the European Community we shall seek to extend to European affairs some of the undoubted advantages of this House of Commons, with regard not only to budgetary discipline, but to the control of public expenditure. The fact that we have a Public Accounts Committee and a Comptroller and Auditor General that do that should be emulated in a European context. Each year we debate the report of the Court of Auditors, yet absolutely nothing is done about the criticisms that it makes of European expenditure. I hope that during our Presidency we shall take up that point strongly.
I welcome the statements in the Gracious Speech about the open government initiative. An increase in openness and a reduction in secrecy are important and are closely linked to accountability. Over the past decade or so we have made a considerable improvement in the level of accountability of the Government to this House through the introduction of the departmental Select Committees. As the hon. Member for Cambridge and other new Members will soon discover, it is difficult at Question Time to pin down a Minister because the subject changes from moment to moment. The moment one thinks that one has pinned down a Minister, the subject changes. Similarly, it is difficult to pin down a Minister when he or she replies to a debate because of the confrontational situation. The departmental Select Committee system is of tremendous importance because it is quite a different matter for a Minister to appear for two hours in front of an all-party Committee. Therefore, it is very important that those Committees should be set up with the least possible delay.
At the end of the previous Parliament the last action of the Liaison Committee, which I had the privilege of chairing, was to instruct me to write to the leaders of all political parties in the House to remind them of the Committee's resolution which read:
"That the Committee of Selection in the next Parliament should take full account of the view expressed by the Procedure Committee of Session 1989–90 that the process of nominating members of select committees should be completed within 30 sitting days after the meeting of a new Parliament, should proceed as a matter of urgency to place before the House its nominations for the membership of select committees and in particular should not feel bound to wait until the appointment of the last junior Opposition spokesman before submitting names to the House."
It is important that we should proceed with the nomination of Select Committees at the earliest possible moment.
In 1983 there was a delay from 15 June to 14 December and in 1987 from 11 June to 2 December before the Select Committees were set up. In the first case there were 66 to 69 sitting days and in the second 49 to 55 sitting days before they were all set up. It would be wrong if we did not set them up before the summer recess. If the Committees do not meet before then, the Clerks and advisers cannot get to work on the programme, and it would be nearly six
520
months before the Committees were established and working following the resumption of the House in this new Parliament. That is why speed is important.
As I was Chairman of the Liaison Committee on the two previous occasions, I do not underestimate the difficulties of the negotiations that will arise. The resolution referred to the Opposition Front Bench. It should be possible to reach agreement on that because the number of individuals concerned must be small, which will prevent any unnecessary delay.
There are further difficult issues—for example, the participation of the minority parties and the chairmanship of the Committees. If the system is to have credibility, it is extremely important that there should be a number of Chairmen from both sides of the House. That is an essential part of the system. Problems are caused by the tradition, now firmly established, that the Committees should mirror the construction of the Departments. There has been no significant change to the Department of the Environment, but there have been changes in the structure of other Departments, not least with regard to the citizens charter and to sport and other related matters. We need to ensure that the Committee structure reflects those changes if the Committees are to monitor effectively the issues to be debated. I hope that we can make significant progress in that respect.
There are further considerations to be taken into account with regard to the European Committees. Those established in the previous Parliament did not work effectively. They were too few and did not have the expertise necessary to scrutinise effectively what has been going on in Europe and to report back to the Floor of the House. I hope that we can reconsider my earlier suggestion that we should have a sub-committee of the existing departmental Committees which have expertise and co-opt on to it other Members from the Floor of the House who have a particular interest in European affairs. It is difficult to man all the Committees in terms of pure numbers, so if we operate as I have described the House will be better at holding the Government and European Community organisations to account.
Those are important issues for Back Benchers from a parliamentary point of view. It is up to Back Benchers to bring pressure to bear so that they fulfil their responsibilities in this matter without delay. Otherwise, a large part of this Parliament will go by when the Government are not called to account in detail on individual matters.
Finally, there has been a great deal of talk about the nature of the present Government and the policy of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I see him within the tradition of the late lain Macleod, under whom I served my apprenticeship: extremely tough and rigorous on economic affairs but with a strong social concern for the everyday problems of individuals. The policies set out in the Gracious Speech reflect that. He comes to office at a time when it is tremendously important that Britain should be able to give a lead not only in European but in world affairs. Leaders across the world, from President Mitterrand in France to Mr. Kohl in Germany, Mr. Bush in the United States and the premier of Japan, are not in a happy position. I believe that we, as a British Government and a British Parliament, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have an opportunity to play the role on the world stage which the House has traditionally regarded as a high priority.

521
I congratulate the Government on the content of the Queen's Speech, and I look forward to seeing the legislation come before the House.
4.59 pm
Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in the House for the first time, but I am equally grateful to the electors of Bath for giving me the opportunity to do so. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members do not think me disingenuous if I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Chris Patten, for whom I have considerable regard. I wish him and his family well when he takes up his new post as Governor of Hong Kong. He will bring to that task his considerable political and intellectual skills.
Chris Patten represented Bath for 13 years, and recent letters to the local evening paper, the Bath and West Evening Chronicle, clearly demonstrate that the electors of Bath held him in high regard. Even those who strongly disagreed with the policies that he supported acknowledge that he was a hard-working constituency Member of Parliament. In that regard, I recognise that it will be a tall order to follow him. Talking of tall orders, I understand that Chris Patten is likely to follow the precedent set by Madam Speaker, who has declined to wear the traditional wig. I understand that Mr. Patten is seriously considering rejecting the tall funny hat with the feathers on top when he takes up his new position.
The recent election was a busy period in Bath for visits from those on the Government Front Bench. We even saw the Prime Minister in Bath, but, on that occasion, he was without his soap box. On the other hand, my supporters were mainly from another place. I will long remember one of them who came with me on a bus trip through the centre of the city, who spoke through a loudspeaker urging the people of Bath to "Vote Don Foster. Vote Christian Democrat." No doubt that was an advance warning of how Liberal Democrat Members are likely to vote in the debate on the Maastricht agreement.
My constituency is a beautiful city. It is the only World Heritage site in Britain which is a complete parliamentary constituency, an honour which it shares with only Florence and Rome. Bath has the finest rugby union side in Britain, the finest musical festival, glorious architecture and wonderful people.
In June 1979, in his maiden speech, Chris Patten said:
"Bath is not a museum piece. It is an extremely busy city, although not quite as busy as we would like following the rise in unemployment in the last few years. It depends a great deal for its prosperity on a number of fine engineering firms."—[Official Report, 14 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 720.]
Sadly, 13 years later, Bath is still not quite as busy as we would like following further recent rises in unemployment and many of the fine engineering firms to which Chris Patten referred are no more. Like many shops and other small businesses, they closed during the recession, often because of the twin attacks from the uniform business rate and high rents. I urge the Government to review rapidly the way that they support small businesses in particular.
Right hon. and hon. Members should be aware that beneath the facade of Georgian elegance Bath has the same problems as those associated with all cities in this country. We too have rising levels of homelessness,
522
increasing unemployment, congested streets with significant traffic problems and ever-rising rates of crime, but the police are deprived of the resources that they need to tackle the problems.
Many people in Bath have suffered badly because of the collapse of those firms that formed part of the empire of the late Robert Maxwell. Maxwell pensioners have seen the promised rewards of a lifetime's work vanish in a cloud of deception, theft and financial jiggery-pokery. I, and my constituents, urge the Government to take quick and decisive action to relieve the misery and distress caused to Maxwell pensioners and to end the uncertainty that they face.
Education is another issue that is of considerable concern to my constituents. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Secretary of State for Education. As I speak, school governing bodies in my constituency are having to face up to how they will cope with cuts in their education budgets. Those cuts have been imposed because of Avon county council's need to reduce its education budget as a means of trying to avoid poll tax capping. In some cases those cuts will result in cuts in the numbers of teachers and, certainly, a reduction in the quality of education provided to pupils. That is in marked contrast to the Government's pledge in the Gracious Speech to
"continue to work to raise standards at all levels of education".
Such a pledge can be met only if it is supported by the necessary targeted increases in investment in education and training. Whatever the merits of the Government's claim to have increased expenditure on education, it is clear to Liberal Democrat Members at least that the current level of investment is inadequate to meet current need let alone any planned changes.
That view is clearly supported by many people in this country, and it was during the general election when the poll showed that three-quarters of the electorate approved of Liberal Democrat proposals to increase investment in education and training by £2 billion, even if that meant a I p increase in taxation.
A nation lives and dies by its human resources. Properly educated and trained, Britain's citizens are our greatest asset. Britain spends less as a proportion of gross domestic product on education than many of our industrial competitors, including France, America, Ireland and even Malaysia. If we are to catch up with our competitors and partners, we must become what we are capable of becoming—one of the most highly educated and highly skilled societies in the world.
Education is about more than economic prosperity. Education liberates while ignorance enslaves. Education widens horizons and enlarges choice. Education enables everyone, regardless of age, sex, background or ability, to realise their unique potential. Wise expenditure on education represents a nation's investment in its own future. Funding for education and training must be further increased and I and my constituents will welcome any Government moves in this direction.
In the Gracious Speech the Government offer a Bill to extend choice and diversity in education. But what choice is currently on offer? Schools must choose between sacking teachers and doing without books, colleges must choose between decent accommodation and up-to-date equipment and universities between overcrowded lecture

523
theatres and empty bank accounts. Eighteen-year-olds must choose between forgoing higher education and starting their careers under the burden of debt.
The Government, rightly in our view, recognised that education and training needed reform, but the speed, complexity and the number of changes have left teachers and lecturers suffering from innovation fatigue. Meanwhile, parents are increasingly bewildered by the apparent emergence of a two-tier system of education. The time has come for the Government to stop and listen to the people of Bath and to people throughout the country. If they are serious about giving real choice to parents and students, they must recognise the problems that their legislation has created. It is vital that the new Secretary of State for Education restores the democratic process of engaging in wide and genuine consultation before any further changes are introduced.
5.10 pm
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I wish at the outset to congratulate the new occupants of the Chair. I hope that we shall not cause them too much trouble in the coming Session. It is not only a duty but a pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on an eloquent speech, delivered with great poise. We look forward to hearing from him in the future, even if we shall not necessarily agree with what he says on those occasions, let alone on this one.
Hon. Members will have agreed with the hon. Gentleman in at least two respects, the first being the tribute he paid to Bath Rugby Union club, which many of us have watched with great pleasure. The second and more important was his tribute to his predecessor, and he rightly couched his remarks in generous terms. I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that when we ask who were the real heroes of the last general election, we shall agree that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Chris Patten share the honours—if not equally, then Chris Patten must still take a large share of the credit for the result of the election. He goes to Hong Kong to take up a challenging new job with the good wishes of all on these Benches, and I have no doubt that he will succeed well in the difficult task that he is about to undertake.
The difficult task that hon. Members face today involves trying to cram a quart into a pint pot, in view of the shortage of time, so I hope that I shall be forgiven for making only one point about education, the subject being taken with the environment. I welcome what the Gracious Speech says about education, in particular about extending choice and diversity. The motion standing in the names of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen is churlish when it says that no measures exist "to improve educational standards and opportunities". That shows how out of touch they are. If they do not believe, as I do, that grant-maintained schools have vastly increased standards and opportunities in education, they should spend more time talking to parents at schools.
In my constituency—the same must be true throughout the country—the grant-maintained system is proving an enormous success, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech on the Loyal Address. I have a word of caution for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, whom I welcome to his new
524
responsibilities. I hope we may have his assurance that there will be no asset stripping by local education authorities in such a way that it will become more difficult for independent managements in schools to maximise the opportunities that lie ahead. I extend that beyond schools, to sixth form colleges, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will find time when he replies to the debate to deal with that aspect.
The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): It may be convenient if I answer my right hon. Friend's question now with a resounding yes. We shall do everything we can to prevent local authorities from asset stripping before schools go grant-maintained and to prevent them from getting in the way of the democratic right of parents voting in favour of grant-maintained status.
Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response. I assure the House that I had not given him prior notice of the question, which makes the response even more welcome.
Time permits me to raise only two matters concerning the environment. The first may seem parochial but it is a problem that my constituents share with many other people in Britain—the vexed question of gipsy sites. Many hon. Members will agree that the present situation is fundamentally unsatisfactory. It brings local government into discredit when difficult problems are handled in such a way as to undermine confidence in the equity of the system under which local authorities operate.
It is generally conceded that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 needs fundamental review and revision. It is clear that what has happened in the parish of Ash, at one end of my constituency, and in the ward of Knaphill, at the other, has not matched the aspirations of my constituents. They are entitled to have their rights fully recognised, to have the opportunity to put their points of view and to have those views debated in public and at length.
There is scope for the Minister who is responsible for the citizens charter to look urgently at the way that the system is working. The present position is unsatisfactory. There seems to be a race to get approval under the Act for registration so that the problem can be unloaded on to the next-door authority. That leads to many relevant factors, including the social impact of gipsy sites and the devaluation aspect, not receiving consideration.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that further problems are created when unauthorised gipsy encampments move into boroughs and it takes a long time before they can be moved on? That issue must be considered in the review of the legislation to which he referred.
Mr. Onslow: I agree with my hon. Friend, and if I were not trying to make a short speech I would expand my remarks to cover the inadequacies of the Public Order Act 1986. Many serious defects exist in the present law and I had hoped that at the beginning of the debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would say whether a review was in progress and, if so, when it might be brought to its conclusion. I hope at least that in correspondence he will give me some encouragement, because increasingly many people are arguing for the substitution of unitary

525
authorities for county councils in dealing with these issues. We need more openness in dealing with the matter, with greater equity all round.
The second point on the environment to which I wish to refer requires me to declare my interest as a passionate angler, but as there are 3 million anglers in Britain, and most of them vote, hon. Members will agree that I need not apologise for raising the matter. Anglers are concerned about the environment pre-eminently because, if they are to pursue their sport, they need water of quality and quantity in which to fish. There is depressing daily evidence that that desirable situation is getting harder to satisfy. To a large extent, it is nobody's fault but the Almighty's. The Government cannot be blamed for the drought. As the Government have resisted the temptation to appoint a Minister who might be blamed, we cannot apportion the blame much further.
Even leaving the drought aside, I would not go so far as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who seemed to blame the Government for failing to appoint an environment agency. I do not know what powers such an agency might have. Most of those who are familiar with the situation agree that much could be done, without rearranging the brass plates on the doors in Whitehall and elsewhere, to ensure that we have effective action to deal with a problem that is easily identified.
We do not need an environment agency to deal with the problem of rivers running dry because of excessive abstraction. The National Rivers Authority has powers, if it cares to use them, to limit and, if necessary, revoke abstraction licences and to move away from the policy that it seems to have adopted lately of treating abstraction licences on a first-come, first-served basis.
There is an urgent need for my right hon. Friend to talk to the chairman of the National Rivers Authority, Lord Crickhowell, and get from him a full report on the action that is to be taken to end the scandal of empty rivers. In Berkshire and Yorkshire—for example, in the Pang and Driffield Beck—nobody can fish because there is insufficient water. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) would echo that point if he were in a position to speak today.
In that context, will the Minister urgently consult the National Rivers Authority about the NRA's approach to the question of transferring water from one part of the United Kingdom to another? The NRA appears to have plans to use rivers as pipelines, regardless of the effect that that might have in transferring acidic water from one part of the country to alkaline rivers in another.
We must review the whole issue of the use of water, recognising that it is a scarce and precious resource. We must appreciate that rivers running with pure water are absolutely essential to the beauty of the countryside as well as to anglers who wish to fish in them.
There are subsidiary issues such as surfactants, foam-causing agents, and the menace, as many anglers see it, of the burning of orimulsion in power stations. Those are subjects on which I hope that the responsible Minister will produce full reports as soon as possible.
I am not anxious to speak at great length because I know that many others wish to contribute to the debate. I wish only to say that in the Gracious Speech we are rightly told that the value of the environment at home and abroad is something that the Government are pledged to defend. That statement is most welcome and I have no doubt that it will he honoured.
526
I welcome especially the initiative that has been taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in relation to the Rio summit. In his speech in the address in reply to the Gracious Speech, my right hon. Friend stressed that we were seeking to give assistance to other parts of Europe, including that which we called eastern Europe, which is now emancipated. Many of us would judge it to be an environmental disaster area. A high priority—I believe that we are the best nation in Europe to discharge it—should be attached to making industrial emissions cleaner and to fighting against environmental pollution so as to bring a civilised environment to areas that have been devastated by years of communist industrial inefficiency. That is one area—my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) listed others—in which I believe that we are uniquely equipped and qualified to set the pace at both European and world level.
We have before us an excellent Gracious Speech. I welcome its contents and I believe that it bodes well for the future of the entire United Kingdom.
5.21 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I start by congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as other hon. Members have done, on your appointment. I also take the opportunity of congratulating Madam Speaker, who represents a constituency in the black country, the west midlands, on her appointment. Those who come from that part of the country derive great pleasure from the fact that Madam Speaker is a local Member.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Ms. Campbell), who indeed made an eloquent maiden speech. Cambridge is fortunate to have such a Member. She is the third Labour Member, as she said, to represent the constituency, and its first female Member. She spoke eloquently indeed when describing the problems that faced her constituents. We heard an excellent maiden speech, too, from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, he spoke without the slightest sign of nervousness. I am sure that we shall hear both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman speak on many occasions in future.
The right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is, of course, the chairman of the 1922 Committee. He said that we have before us an excellent Queen's Speech. Obviously, I do not believe anything of the sort.
Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): The hon. Gentleman would not.
Mr. Winnick: Indeed. I have every justification for taking that view of the speech, which contains no mention of unemployment. There is not one word on that subject. Conservative Members may consider this to be old-fashioned, outdated and the rest, but I have not changed my view, any more than my Labour colleagues have, that unemployment casts an unacceptable blot on society and causes immense hardship.
Some of us had the privilege of listening to Merlyn Rees's final speech in the House, which he made shortly before the general election. He referred to the 1944 White Paper on employment, which was introduced by Ernest Bevin. It was accepted in that document that Government had a role in trying to ensure conditions of full employment.

527
Unemployment—deprivation of the right to work—is bad enough in itself but it is even worse that so many suffer prolonged periods of being unable to find a job. I do not gloat when Tory Members lose their seats and face employment difficulties. I lost my former seat in 1970 and in the conditions that then prevailed I was fortunate to find myself in employment within a week. I am glad, obviously, that Conservative Members lost their seats in the election and that there were many Labour gains, but I am sure that those Conservatives do not wish to be unemployed. It is understandable that they will make every possible effort to find work. They will find themselves in the same position as our constituents, who want to be able to work as well.
Church Action on Poverty sent all hon. Members this week a booklet on poverty. One of the contributors wrote about a part of Tyne and Wear where there is 84 per cent. unemployment. She stated that in some families two or three generations have never known what it is to be properly employed. The west midlands, too, have suffered in the second major recession, as we suffered in the early 1980s. Far too many people in the west midlands and in the black country are finding many problems in trying to obtain work.
People in their 50s, and even in their 40s, face an additional problem when they are told that they are too old to be taken on. When someone in his or her early 40s starts his or her political career in this place, no one considers him or her necessarily to be old. Far from it. I note that the Secretary of State for Education smiles. He should know that no doubt some of his constituents are in the position that I described. So many people are told even when they are in their 40s, let alone in their 50s, that they are too old to work. That is an additional problem when the economic climate is as harsh as it is at present.
In addition to that, there is what I can best describe as a growing underclass. In that group we see poverty, deprivation, lack of proper schooling, inadequate housing and poor opportunities at their worst. When the Government were elected in 1979, they made much of law and order. We know only too well that crime—in some instances serious crime—occurs frequently in many parts of the country. It is not only women who are greatly reluctant to go out after 7 pm in some areas. Does anyone doubt that the growing joblessness among young people is a factor in the crime statistics? Many school leavers find it impossible to obtain a permanent job.
It may be that after the Conservative election victory Ministers do not want to be warned by Labour Members, but I shall do so. I choose my words carefully. They will be playing with fire if effective steps are not taken to deal with the problems to which I referred. Often, those in the underclass, as I have described it, do not bother to vote. They feel alienated from the political scene. In some instances, they take the minimum amount of interest in public affairs. In percentage terms, the number of people in the underclass here, when set against the population as a whole, is not as great as that in the United States, but it is growing. That should cause the House much concern.
There are Conservative Members who believe that naked market forces have a solution to all problems. I assume that the majority of Ministers take that view. In more recent years, Americans have been told that government should be of the very minimum, but naked
528
market forces have not been able to deal with the underclass and the poverty and destitution in that country. Surely what has happened in the United States is a warning to us to be extremely careful. It is a warning to the Government to recognise that there is a problem. Even if the warning comes from Labour Members, it is one that should be taken seriously.
The Secretary of State mentioned housing. It is ironic that almost all Labour Members, and, I imagine, a good number of Tory Members, receive more letters from constituents about this subject than about any other. Two thirds of those who come to my surgery come to talk about housing matters—mainly, although not entirely, about the need to be housed or rehoused.
I have made my position on the matter clear in a number of housing debates, and it is the same as that of all my colleagues. I accept that most people want to own their own property. If Tory Members want to believe their own propaganda about our supposed views on housing, they are entitled to do so. I have always said that as I own my own house—or am acquiring it from the building society—I could hardly wish to deprive others of the same opportunity. But the fact remains that a large minority, even in better conditions, cannot purchase, so rented and affordable rental accommodation is necessary.
For 13 years the Government have made it virtually impossible for local authorities to build. Not a single council house has gone up in my borough in that time. The Government have made no secret of the fact that they believe that local authorities no longer have a role in house building. That is dogma at its worst, and it causes a great deal of suffering and hardship. Young couples, perhaps with one child, tell me that they have to live with their in-laws or in a furnished room. I tell them that the Government say that they should be able to buy a place in the newly built housing in the private sector—whereupon they smile, knowing full well that they are not in a position to purchase. The only way such people stand any chance of acquiring adequate accommodation is through the local authority.
Housing waiting lists grow longer and longer. Why should people be penalised just because they cannot get a mortgage? The Government say that there are alternative forms of rented accommodation: the private sector. I accept that there is now more private rented accommodation—but without security, and at rents which people in need cannot afford.
I agree that housing associations have a role to play, but the figures are stark. In 1978, more than 20,500 new such dwellings were being built; that had fallen to 18,000 by 1990. I remind my colleagues of the figures for council house building. In 1978, the last full year of office for the Labour Government, there were well over 76,000 starts. In 1990, the number had fallen to 7,500. Is it any wonder that people find themselves in such a desperate housing plight?
There has been no response from the Government. The Minister said that he hopes that we will not oppose rents into mortgages, but that is not the issue. The real issue is providing accommodation for those who are desperately in need of housing and cannot afford to buy.
Understandably, Conservative Members will take much satisfaction from the fact that we have once again failed to win an election. Every Labour Member deeply regrets that, and we believe that our loss is the country's loss. We will not be in a position to implement what we wanted to do on housing, unemployment and pensions.

529
There will be the usual inquest on why we failed to win, and Conservative Members will take as much satisfaction as they like from that, too. We, however, can take some limited satisfaction from the fact that we made substantial gains and that 39 Tory Members lost their seats. With any luck, more of them will do so at the next election.
Labour Members have a duty and responsibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, to express the hopes and aspirations of the people to whom 1 have referred—those in difficulty, those who know that their problems are likely to be raised in the House only by Labour Members. No Tory Member would raise those sorts of issues because Tory Members are not interested in them. As well as expressing the hopes and aspirations of those who are more fortunate, Labour Members will continue to do our job in this respect. We have firmly re-established ourselves as one of the two major parties, and however much Tory Members dislike the fact, we are an effective Opposition. We will continue to be one and we will do our utmost to ensure that when the next election comes we will be able to form a Government.
5.35 pm
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I thank the Chair for allowing me this opportunity to make what is known as a maiden speech. Other maiden speeches have already taken us to Cambridge and Bath, and we have now reached another beautiful English city—Chester.
I have some reservations about the phrase "maiden speech" because it has an unfortunate sexist ring to it. As a rule I do not like sexist language, although I have begun to have some reservations about politically correct linguistics since the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) told me of the Christmas pantomime in his constituency which, for reasons of political correctness, was retitled, "Snow Green and the Seven Persons of Restricted Growth".
On these occasions, and in these early days, new Members are anxious to do the right thing. They all say, and it is true, that it is much like arriving at a new school —Westminster high, a political academy for students of somewhat mixed abilities. There does not appear to be any formal prospectus but, happily, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) has published an admirable guide to the culture of the place and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) has published an equally fascinating guide to the subculture. Fortunately, Doorkeepers and the police are always on hand to point one in the right direction. I have not yet found my way to the hairdresser's or the rifle range, but doubtless my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) will sort me out in due course.
Sitting in the right place is also vital. On the day of Madam Speaker's memorable election, I found myself innocently drawn to the spot immediately behind the Prime Minister—instinctively drawn there, I now realise, by the assumption that it was the correct place for the Member for the City of Chester because that is exactly where my predecessor, Sir Peter Morrison, was wont to sit when he served the Prime Minister's illustrious predecessor so ably and loyally.
Loyalty is certainly a word that one associates with Sir Peter, a true gentleman who served his Prime Minister, his party, his constituents and his country with unswerving loyalty, energy and commitment during nearly 20 years in
530
this House. Now that he has moved on to fresh fields and oil rigs new, I am sure that Members on both sides will join me in wishing him well for the future.
I have no doubt that Sir Peter will be keeping a discreet eye on my endeavours here, as will his distinguished predecessor, Sir Jack Temple and, indeed, his predecessor Sir Basil Nield—
Mr. Jack Straw: All still alive?
Mr. Brandreth: Yes indeed, all very much alive—we live a very long time in Chester because of the lovely water in the River Dee. Sir Basil was the Member of Parliament for Chester who pioneered what became the Adoption Act 1950, transforming for the better the lives of thousands of families throughout this country. On the day when we are invited to enter the ballot for private Members' Bills, that is a timely reminder to us newcomers of what a Back Bencher can achieve.
I understand that it is customary on these occasions to extol the virtues of one's constituency. For some Members, that may be something of a challenge because while the beauties and brilliance of Bradford, Brent or Bootle are very real, they are not necessarily as well known as they might be. For the fortunate Member for the City of Chester, it is different: the virtues of Chester are already celebrated.
Our city has been likened to the Conservative party—as modern as tomorrow, with a lot of time for yesterday. We combine the new—excellent communications, which will he even better with the electrification of the railway from Crewe to Holyhead, superb business parks, the best in British retailing—with the old: a unique walled city, a matchless heritage, a great cathedral now celebrating its 900th anniversary.
Chester has been justly described as the jewel in the crown of the north west. It is, in fact, a pearl in the oyster of England. If you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, have not yet been there, the Whitsun recess and the best hotels and guest houses in the land are waiting to welcome you.
In Chester, we have everything—including the Duke of Westminster, and I refer not to a public house but to a constituent with decided views, no doubt, on certain elements in the Gracious Speech, views that will be well worth listening to. I have found that all my constituents have views that are well worth listening to. They are articulate and concerned, and they are particularly concerned about the issues at the heart of this debate: local government, education and the environment. My constituents, particularly those fortunate to be elected last Thursday, are concerned that local government reforms should not erode local government accountability. They have especially charged me with attempting to unravel the impenetrable formula by which the standard spending assessment is arrived at and to explore why it is that a city such as Chester, with its special responsibilities towards our national heritage and its ever-growing contribution towards our national tourist industry, appears to be treated less fairly than it might.
My constituents—all of them—are concerned about education. They welcome local management of schools, diversity, choice, the raising of standards and the special emphasis that the Gracious Speech gives to teacher training. They recognise the need for reform, but they also recognise the additional burdens that reforms have laid upon governors and teachers alike.

531
In Chester, we are proud of our schools and colleges and pleased that no sooner had my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Education hit his desk for the first time than he took the decision to save a threatened nursery school in Chester, sending out a clear signal that the Government recognise that the needs of the child and the voice of the parent are paramount and that nursery education—nursery schools as well as nursery units—has an increasingly important part to play in the educational life of our country.
My constituents—all of them—are concerned about the environment. They welcome the priority given to the environment in the Gracious Speech. They welcome the Prime Minister's initiative in being the first leader to commit himself to attending the earth summit in Rio. They salute the Government for securing the doubling of green belt land in the past decade and for recently supporting the green belt around Chester, not as an inflexible straitjacket but as a protective girdle which helps us to secure the unique nature of our city and encourages urban renewal rather than urban sprawl.
I particularly welcome the fact that the Gracious Speech specifically emphasises that environmental consequences are to be considered in every element of Government decision making. Where decisions are finely balanced, as they often will be, I sense that my constituents will want to see the environment given the benefit of the doubt.
As hon. Members will discover in the months and years ahead, my constituents have a great deal to say. That is why they welcome a listening Government—not a Government who pay lip service to the notion of listening and then carry on regardless, but a vital, thoughtful, progressive Government who regard listening carefully not as a weakness but as one of their greatest strengths.
5.43 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) for an excellent maiden speech, delivered with great charm and eloquence. I do not know Chester—except for its race course, the memory of which is somewhat painful—but I congratulate him on his tour of that city and I wish him well in the House.
I also wish to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. For each of the previous four years I have spoken after you in the debate on the Queen's Speech. That was not to be this year, and I wish you well in your new post.
When I sought guidance from the Speaker's Office on the subject of each day's debate on the Queen's Speech, I was told that today one should nod in the direction of local government, education and the environment. I intend to do that, but in such a way as to focus on the issues as they affect the area that I represent in the north of Ireland, with all its tragedies. I shall start with local government, because we simply do not have any. It is difficult to speak about local government when we have none—when we are in a kind of limbo, detached in some ways, semi-detached in others, and without the luxury of being able to speak about the issues that most hon. Members will speak about today.
532
Historically, this is an important time for us in Northern Ireland. It is important in terms of the outside influences and developments which are coming to bear in a far-reaching and fundamental way. I believe that outside agencies in the European dimension, the EC and Maastricht, and the harnessing of diversity and differences in Europe will be a positive force rather than the confrontation that we have seen so often. I believe that that and many other outside influences will have a bearing on the creation of structures within the north of Ireland the—type of structures that will lead to an administrative system there which will give us a level playing field so that in debates such as this we can talk about local government as it exists rather than as a vacuum within our society.
As is obvious, we are presently involved in talks. It is a crucial and sensitive period and I do not want to speak about those talks. Suffice it to say one thing: we have a choice—either we can look for a neat, tidy little package which will take the Northern Ireland problem off the agenda here and out of people's minds, which will put it on the long finger, or we can look for a solution to the problems.
If we look for a neat little package, in 20 years' time some of us will be sitting here saying exactly the same things. It will be a futile waste of time. If we are looking for a solution to the problems, I believe that the time is right. The wind of change is blowing from outside and it is blowing inside in the desire for peace. It is blowing through the minds of many people as we approach the end of the century and we simply cannot allow this blight on our entire community, on our country to continue and go into a new century with the millstone of terrible violence and dissension around our necks. I only hope that the Government want a solution to the problem rather than a tidy little package which will suit their purposes in terms of their own presentation.
What happens in those talks does not happen in a vacuum. There is no ivory tower. The talks will be affected by what happens outside. Here I nod in the direction of the environment. One week ago, I stood outside an Army checkpoint in my constituency where yet another young British soldier had been blown to pieces by the Provisional IRA. On a previous occasion, I had asked that those static checkpoints be removed. Environmentally, they are horrendous, but that is immaterial when it comes to the cost in human life. Yet the Government persist with the daft, silly notion, which cannot be justified, that they should have those lookout posts there as sitting targets for the Provisional IRA and other paramilitary organisations.
Those people who know my prejudices and views may say that I am simply making that point in relation to Army activity in the north of Ireland. So be it. I will, however, quote someone whose opinion in that respect cannot be questioned. I refer to Brigadier Peter Morton, a former British Army commander in South Armagh, operations officer for Northern Ireland, and a Ministry of Defence planner. He is now retired, but he described lookout points in this way:
"Bases, perched like Crusader castles showing the flag on every Ulster road and hillside, are sitting targets for the terrorists, to be reconnoitred in safety and attacked at leisure.
They drain resources, sap the strength of the security forces, and place many lives needlessly in danger."
If I were the father of the young soldier who was killed a week ago, or of the young man who was killed some

533
months ago, I would seriously question the validity of the decision to retain those static checkpoints. I would ask for what it was that my son died.
The Minister of State said in an interview after the latest incident that the purpose of the lookouts is to reassure the community, but the view of the Army is that they do not fulfill any useful purpose. They do not fight terrorism, but are there to reassure some sections of the community. Is that worth the loss of one or two lives, or even more? I ask the Secretary of State for Education to draw that matter to the attention of his colleagues.
Mr. John Patten indicated assent.
Mr. Mallon: It is unacceptable for young lives to be endangered for no reason but to provide reassurance. The lookout post in the latest incident goes 60 feet into the earth, yet that post—one of 27 in my constituency—did not observe a digger 200 yards away as it loaded explosives on to a truck which was then sent along the railway line to the static checkpoint.
There is something radically wrong with a security policy that does not meet the situation. If lookout posts did not exist, many more soldiers would be available for patrols. One can be sure that the terrorists will not use roads where checkpoints are located. They will not be caught in that way. The element of surprise is all important, but that element has been removed in such a way that it puts lives at risk—to say nothing of the number of houses in the vicinity of that checkpoint which have been destroyed on two occasions. I visited the area a week ago, after the latest explosion, to see roofs, walls, and belongings gone. Yet there remains stubbornness, a refusal to be convinced, on the part of Government sources in the north of Ireland.
I refer next to the situation in County Fermanagh, which I will support with statistics. One full British Army battalion has for months been guarding the workmen who are building another static checkpoint. At the same time, the Irish army on the other side of the border devoted 76,000 man hours over three weeks to guarding that British Army battalion. That puts into perspective an aspect of security policy which cannot be defended.
I mentioned that there are 27 lookout posts in my constituency. Obviously, they see little and prevent nothing. Yet they are equipped with all kinds of surveillance equipment, which is giving cause for concern in terms of its effects on the environment and health. Does it give rise to a radiation problem? Is there a cancer-causing factor to consider? There is a growing belief among experts that such equipment poses a grave danger. I ask that that aspect also be investigated before it is too late. Such a suggestion may be poo-poohed, and cold water poured on it, but eventually sense will reign in the minds of those who make decisions.
My third nod is in the direction of education, in the hope that my remarks will help to inform those who are responsible for security in the north of Ireland. We have a serious problem with the IRA. The world knows it, we know it, and the Government know it. We have a serious problem also with other paramilitary groups—one of which has killed more people this year than the Provisionals have. It was responsible for the multiple murders committed at a bookmaker's in the Armagh road in Belfast, and for the shooting of the lady in a chemist's
534
shop. The same group has been responsible for killings in the most horrific circumstances. I refer to the Ulster Defence Association.
The UDA uses a flag of convenience known as the Ulster Freedom Fighers and the Ulster Volunteer Force. It is one of the most horrific murder machines to be found anywhere. What is the official reaction? I hope that other right hon. and hon. Members will help me in this educational process. When asked in a "This Week" programme why the UDA is not banned, one of the present Ministers of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), replied:
"It is from a part of the community that believe they are under threat—and if they believe they are under threat, within the law they may protest about this. They may associate. That's not to say that there aren't some rowdy, hooligan, and possible criminal elements."
Good heavens—the Minister talks of
"rowdy, hooligan, and possible criminal elements"
in referring to one of the most horrific murder gangs operating within these islands. Is it any wonder that year after year, when we see the tragedy of the north of Ireland and what the people there have to endure, we grow intensely angry at the failure of this Parliament and of the Government ever to solve that problem? But solve it we must.
If we are to make political progress, and to hold talks that will result in a successful resolution of the political problems, we must end some of the nonsenses in what is supposed to be a security policy for the north of Ireland. I take this opportunity again to draw attention to them, because if we do not get to grips with those issues, no one will be able to solve the political problems.
5.58 pm
Mr. James Pawsey: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke with considerable feeling about Northern Ireland, but he will forgive me if I do not follow him down the route that he signposted so well. He was, however, quite right to air in this debate the issues that he did.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) spoke with great eloquence and wit. I am sure that the House joins me in looking forward to hearing further contributions from him. I would say that even if I were not standing for re-election to the executive of the 1922 Committee later this week.
It is a great pleasure for me to see my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Education in the Chamber. I have not the slightest doubt that he will bring a different view and a different style to his office and to our education debates, especially in comparison with his immediate predecessor. He is, however, the fifth Secretary of State whom I have seen during my period as chairman of the Back-Bench education committee. I am sure that he will agree that we now look forward to a considerable period of continuity, which, in my view, is much to be desired. I hope that my right hon. Friend enjoys a long, useful and happy stay in the Department.
I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) to his new post as Under-Secretary of State. He brings an original mind to our debates, and I look forward with considerable interest to hearing what he says about education.
For the Labour party, however, it is business as usual and opposition as usual. True, Labour Members entertained some high and misplaced ambitions to move to

535
this side of the House, but for them that must be a pleasure deferred. They will have to reconcile themselves to the prospect of at least another five years in opposition. That will provide them with an opportunity to reconsider some of their education policies—for, eventually, even they will come to understand that the nation's parents want more choice and diversity in the nation's schools, and that a single type of school, no matter how well intentioned, cannot satisfy all the nation's children.
The present Government have not hesitated to make resources available for education. Last year, education spending in the United Kingdom rose by some 16 per cent.; this year, it will rise by a further 7 per cent. Both increases are well above inflation.
The Gracious Speech stated that the Government would
"continue to work to raise standards at all levels of education",
and that a Bill would be introduced
"to extend choice and diversity in education."
I welcome those proposals, and I want more schools to receive grant-maintained status, which will enable more local initiatives to flourish. Grant-maintained schools have a better understanding of the wishes, aspirations and needs of local parents and communities than, certainly, many local education authorities.
So often, LEAs have sought to impose a rigid education policy on differing schools in a wide geographical area —a policy sometimes determined more by political considerations than by education needs. I believe that the more that parents are involved in the running of schools and the education of their children, the better. Most parents naturally want the best for their children, and parents can help to drive forward the necessary improvement in the standard and quality of state education.
I hope that clusters of schools will apply for grant-maintained status. I hope that, for example, denominational secondary schools will, together with their feeder primaries, make the necessary applications, and I believe that if they do so they should be considered as single units. It will still be necessary, however, for each school to ballot parents and, if parents vote against grant-maintained status for a certain school, that school will not be able to form part of a cluster.
I also believe that it should be made much easier for some of the smaller primary schools to obtain grant-maintained status, especially those in rural areas. I support the concept of the village school—often very small and often providing, despite its size, very good education for local children. Clearly, it will be difficult for some small schools to consider grant-maintained status on their own, but, if they join neighbouring schools of similar size, such status should be possible and even desirable.
I have long argued that the principal attraction of grant-maintained status is not the additional funding received by the schools involved, but the greater independence that such schools enjoy. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to hear the assent of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Patten: And that of your right hon. Friend.
Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that correction.
536
I am not arguing that all local education authorities stultify innovation and development. I believe, however, that since 1902, when they were first introduced, a number of changes have been made to education, society and, indeed, local government. I am far from certain whether LEAs in their present form are flexible enough to respond to the challenges of the late 20th century.
Despite the attractions of grant-maintained status, I am aware that not all schools will opt for that route. Some are likely to continue to work beneath the umbrella of the local education authority, in which event LEAs should be considerably modified. I believe that they will have to consider a new role—a role that may not be as positive as that which they currently enjoy. Moreover, some secondary schools, especially in the inner cities, may decide not to apply for grant-maintained status. I know that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are particularly concerned about education problems in the inner cities. Although in some cases grant-maintained status may present a partial answer to some of those questions, it may be necessary to consider a substantial increase in the number of city technology colleges.
I am well aware of the benefits provided by CTCs. I know that they are able to offer a diversity and choice that are widely welcomed by the majority of parents. They are also able to improve substantially the quality of education available in the inner cities. I believe that CTCs can become bright beacons, lighting up the inner cities and giving real opportunities to children who, in so many other ways, are indeed deprived.
I am fully conscious that that suggestion has substantial financial implications; but the popularity of the existing CTCs, and the fact that they are always oversubscribed, demonstrate that they represent one method of improving education standards, particularly in the inner cities. Despite the best efforts of teachers and administrators, the comprehensive schools have not resolved the problems of inner-city education. They have now existed for 25 to 30 years, and some believe that that period has coincided with a gradual erosion of standards—again, particularly in some of the inner-city areas.
Despite what Opposition Members may believe, increased funding does not in itself resolve the problem. At least three additional elements are required to improve the quality and standard of state education. First, we need a lessening of the expensive local bureaucracy, which would allow more to be spent on individual schools and in the classroom. Secondly, we need greater independence for schools, with heads and governing bodies making decisions within the basic structure of the national curriculum. Thirdly, we need more involvement and interest on the part of parents, who, I believe, will become the great engine for change within our schools.
We also need a well-motivated and adequately paid teaching force. I have long argued, in the House and outside, that the majority of the nation's teachers are indeed dedicated both to their profession and to the children in their charge; but they must face some real problems, stemming, for example, from the growing number of single parent families and the break-up of the family unit. Teachers face an increasing lack of respect for authority, and a growing sense of indiscipline. All that adds to the problems of the classroom teacher.
I do not underestimate the problems or the challenge that teachers face, particularly in the inner cities, and I know that that issue very much concerns my right hon.

537
Friend the Secretary of State. As I said earlier, I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of expanding city technology colleges so that they may improve the quality of state education, particularly in our larger cities.
The Gracious Speech also referred to teacher training. I should certainly like students to spend more time in the class rather than the lecture room. The theory of education is, of course, important, but in my view it is secondary to the practicality of acquiring skills in teaching children in schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will understand the critical importance of ensuring that classroom practice takes place in those schools which have a good and deserved reputation for teaching and maintaining discipline, for those two aspects clearly go closely together.
Reference to teacher training takes me to another aspect and a different reference—dyslexia. Dyslexia exists. It is not a middle-class excuse for lazy sons or lazy daughters. I welcome the Department's initiatives in, first, giving guidance on how dyslexia should be identified and, secondly, when it is identified, taking the appropriate action to remedy the problems and difficulties. Teachers require special training both in the identification of dyslexia and in the teaching of dyslexic pupils. The frustration that must be experienced by children suffering from dyslexia is at times almost tangible.
I am pleased that the sum of £10 million so far has been made available over a period of three years for the reading recovery scheme, which helps to identify and remedy some of those difficulties. I am also pleased that the training of student primary teachers will include the consideration of dyslexia.
Mr. Bellingham: Can I pick my hon. Friend's brain on dyslexia, which is an extremely important subject? Does my hon. Friend agree that the time that it takes for children to be statemented in some local authorities is intolerable?
Mr. Pawsey: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. That, again, is a matter that is being closely looked at by the Department of Education. I hope that the statementing procedure will be streamlined to enable pupils suffering from dyslexia to be identified much sooner, to their advantage.
As for advanced education, I welcome the substantial increase in the number of young people who are now in advanced education. When we first came to office in 1979, the number of students in advanced education had slumped to about 700,000. Today, that figure is well over 1 million. To put it another way, in 1979 only one in eight of the target group was in advanced education. Today the figure is one in four and it is set to fall to one in three during the next few years.
That suggests to me two things: first, that there has been a substantial increase in the number of places in our colleges, polytechnics and universities to cater for the additional number of students and, secondly, that there has been an increase in the number of young people who are sufficiently well qualified to enter advanced education.
My main point regarding advanced education is a limited one. In particular, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the size of the access funds. When they were first introduced under the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988, they amounted to £25 million. They have now been increased to £25.8 million, an amount that
538
is great enough only to cover the increase in inflation. That very modest increase in funds has not kept pace with the substantial increase in student numbers. My firm belief is that we should uprate the access funds to cater for the substantial increase in student numbers. The access funds do much to reduce student hardship.
l am completely in favour of the introduction of student loans. I understand the reasons for the grant having been frozen, but those two reasons give added impetus to my view that we should look very hard at the size of the access funds and that there should be an increase in the amount of money provided. I hope that my right hon. Friend will refer to that point when he winds up the debate.
The Queen's Speech contains an exciting programme. I commend it wholeheartedly to all parts of the House.
6.14 pm
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my first speech during this debate.
On these occasions it is customary to mention one's predecessor. Mr. John Hughes represented Coventry, North-East from 1987 until the recent general election. His convictions, and some of his methods of pursuing them, meant that he did not endear himself to everyone. However, he possessed a friendly and approachable way of dealing with his constituents. He certainly possessed tenacity, which he used on their behalf. Therefore, I pay tribute to him for his efforts on their behalf. I wish both him and his wife a peaceful and fulfilling retirement.
Many hon. Members know that Coventry, North-East was represented from 1974 to 1987 by Mr. George Park. I understand that he commanded considerable respect in this place. Hon. Members will be glad to hear that he commands similar respect in the constituency, where he is still very active in local community affairs. He is currently the chairman of the community health council in Coventry. He was very kind and helpful to me in the run-up to the general election. I thank both him and his wife for the help and kindness that they have shown me.
Coventry, North-East is a compact, urban constituency —an integral part of the city which, despite two devastating recessions, still employs more people in manufacturing than the national average. We have a complete mixture of housing: inner city areas, council estates and pleasant semi-suburban, owner-occupied areas. Despite its compact size, my constituency contains and is bordered by some valuable environments that deserve and, in large part, are receiving the protection that they need. In particular, I draw attention to Coombe Abbey park and the Sowe valley, which bring beautiful, natural countryside right up to and into the urban area.
Much work that is commendable has been done by the local authority, local conservationists and the Countryside Commission. They deserve our thanks and support, along with many other local groups that, through their hard work, do so much to maintain the quality of life in the area.
I am afraid, however, that we also have considerable problems in the constituency, as do all urban areas in this country. As I listened to some of the speeches yesterday and today, I found that I could hardly recognise the country that was being described by some Conservative Members. Our cities are in great danger. The trend, under current policies, is towards the position that has been

539
reached in the United States. If effective action is not taken, we shall see in our country what I call the doughnut effect: cities with great holes in the middle, where people do not go and dare not go.
The Queen's Speech does not address those problems. It is not just a question of policing, although that is important. In many cases, the police are stretched beyond belief. Crime, and the fear of crime, has now reached a level that is totally and absolutely unacceptable—this, after 13 years in power of the party that claims to be the party of law and order.
Security, hope and opportunity must be brought back to citizens living in those areas. Current urban policy is, in many cases, exacerbating and increasing the divisions. The grand scheme is favoured rather than housing and school repairs and we hear speeches such as that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey).
I had not intended to talk about education, but I join the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth in his congratulations to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on his maiden speech. His accent, confidence and delivery and, although I am not an expert, probably his school tie, prove that he enjoyed a degree of choice in education. It showed in the way that he delivered his speech and he should be congratulated on his ability in that regard. However, in the constituency that I represent we do not have two or three cars per family to take the kids to school. Choice must mean a first-class local school offering first-class education within the area in which it is needed, and we certainly do not have that.
All those problems are of some importance but most important of all is the level of unemployment. In 1974, in his first speech in the House, Mr. George Park spoke of Coventry as being a great centre of manufacturing. He talked of his fears about the fact that British ideas were increasingly being developed abroad. His fears were well founded. We have seen great companies in our city, which were making a contribution towards the national economy and providing employment, going to the wall without any effective attempts to save them. The Queen's Speech talked of privatisation and other policies but said nothing about the regeneration and investment that will be necessary to stop that from continuing.
In 1987, Mr. John Hughes, in his first speech in the House, said that unemployment in the Foleshill ward of my constituency was 28 per cent. Now, five years later, it is 23 per cent. and increasing again. That level of unemployment destroys the fabric of communities and something must be done about it. It affects crime, education, the environment and health. Last year, the local health authority in Coventry did a statistical analysis of life expectancy levels in the different parts of Coventry. This is supposed to be a modern western country offering the best opportunities to all its citizens, yet it discovered a discrepancy in life expectancy levels of over seven years between the most affluent wards in the city and the most deprived. That is totally unacceptable. It discovered that the indicators of poor health followed almost completely the geographical pattern of unemployment levels.
We will not solve those problems by privatisation or anti-union legislation. We will not solve them by allowing hospitals to opt out or by any other of the policies that
540
seem to be high on the agenda. We will not cure unemployment by simply supporting service industries, tourism and so on, important as they are. We must support manufacturing. We must make and sell things if they are to be successful.
I sat in the House yesterday listening to the plans for privatisation. During most of my life I have worked for Jaguar cars. That company was privatised while I was working there, and privatisation was probably far more appropriate there than in many of the proposed areas. However, it did not solve the problems in that company. Some directors became millionaires through lucrative share options, management bonuses, massive increases in salaries and cuts in taxation. They were handed down honours and so on. However, at the end of their reign, more than 4,000 people lost their jobs in the latest round of redundancies.
That is another proud Coventry company that is struggling to survive. The remaining work force, trade unions and the new management, who have at least brought a degree of professionalism in dealing with some of the problems, are working together to solve the problems and pull that company around. Privatisation did nothing for Jaguar and it will do nothing for our coal industry, apart from doing massive damage to our national interest.
Those are the issues that we should be addressing if we want to build a nation at peace with itself, where people of all races and both sexes can live in harmony and walk the streets in safety. Those are the issues that I shall be making my priority during my time in the House. I hope that if I can achieve just one thing, it will be to do some damage to the self-satisfied attitudes that appear to prevail in many parts of the House.
6.26 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: It is with no little pride and a great sense of honour that I speak for the first time in the House. I must immediately make known the debt that I feel to my constituents for sending me here. I hope that the faith that they have shown in me will not be misplaced over the years.
My constituency is Woodspring. Like many hon. Members, I have received several hundred letters since the election saying, "Congratulations on a wonderful Conservative result—by the way, where is Woodspring?" Those who have been in the House before will not be surprised to learn that the reason they have not heard the name of the constituency more often is that it was represented by Sir Paul Dean, who spent a record length of time as a Deputy Speaker. He gave record service both to the House and to the country. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House join me in wishing him a happy retirement. After the length of time that he spent as Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he more than deserves it.
One of the questions that is of immense pertinence to Woodspring is its location. After the reorganisation of local government in 1974 the people of Woodspring, who had always belonged to north Somerset, found themselves in the much loathed county of Avon. The quicker Avon is abolished, the better—and the quicker my constituents are returned to Somerset, which is where they belong, the

541
happier they will be. Any Minister who can push that through quickly will be assured of a warm welcome when coming to speak in Woodspring.
Woodspring extends from Portishead, south of Bristol in the north-west of the constituency, through Clevedon, Nailsea, the Chew valley and down to Paulton, a town which has particular difficulties in the wake of the Robert Maxwell affair. Like many of my hon. Friends, I shall he trying my best to get a fair deal for those who have suffered from the scandalous behaviour of Robert Maxwell and what he has done to those poor people.
There are several other problems in the constituency, courtesy of Avon county, not least of which is shared by many of my hon. Friends, and that is the problem of traveller sites. We require urgent reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. It is becoming scandalous that law-abiding citizens who work hard to improve their community and their homes and surroundings should be discriminated against by a piece of legislation which gives priority to those who have no semblance of regard for local community and no community spirit, and who contribute nothing. I urge the Government to undertake a far-reaching and rapid reform of that legislation.
It is with some sadness that I speak in this debate. I am one of the many doctors who qualified under the Conservative Government and their far-reaching reforms of the health service. I was disappointed—indeed, disturbed—to find that the Opposition, who a few weeks ago told us that health was the single most important issue facing the electorate and that the election was a referendum on the NHS, chose not to debate the subject in the six days of debate on the Loyal Address. Why has it slipped so far down the Opposition's agenda? Could it be that they were rumbled during the election and were shown to be posturing in the extreme, with no solid policies to oppose the reforms that the Government have made? That is the case.
Conservatives do not need any lessons from our opponents about caring. We heard the word "caring" used today during health questions as though it were the exclusive preserve of the Labour party. As a junior doctor and a medical student during the health workers' strike, organised by caring NUPE and COHSE and supported by the caring Labour party, I took blood samples in taxis through picket lines. That was the extent of their caring. In this spirit of great caring, dredging up personal cases of misery to try to find the one case that has gone badly in the national health service and overlooking all the reforms and successes that we have had, they have resorted to the lowest form of political debate. To try to say that every case that has gone wrong is typical is loathsome.
For the first time since its inception, Conservatives have introduced into the health service the idea that preventive medicine is important. Before the GP contract was introduced, we were told by our opponents—by the British Medical Association and by those who now oppose the new Home Secretary, whose bravery in introducing the reforms should be attested to—that we would lose the ability to see elderly patients and that people would riot get the medicines that they require. We have seen record immunisations, record numbers of women having cervical smears, and record numbers of visits. Yet when our opponents are asked to say what is good about Conservative health reforms, they are not able to give any examples.
542
look forward to giving many examples and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is not here to listen to some of the positive aspects of Conservative health policy. It is time he realised that not everything that the Government do—even in his view—is bad.
It is a great honour to speak in the House. I hope that in the coming months and years the health debate in the House will be more constructive than in the past, but, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, I fear that it will be a triumph of my fears over my hopes.
I hope that Conservative Members will contribute constructively. The Queen's Speech was excellent and Conservative Members, especially the newcomers, look forward to the legislation that follows it, which will be good not only for our party but, more importantly, for the country.
6.55 pm
Dr. Tony Wright: I should like, first, to congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I should like to congratulate the new hon. Members who spoke before me—my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—who, in their different ways, were excellent.
I am particularly grateful to be called now because I have spent most of my life suffering from a disability which is known as alphabetical order. My name is Wright, which has meant that I have tended always to be at the end of queues. People who use the principle of alphabetical order tend to think that it is a democratic, a just principle. In fact, it is just only to people who fall at the beginning of the alphabet. I hope now to escape that disability and look to Madam Speaker for help.
As evidence of my disability, I have a small majority —1,506. I sometimes think that it might be larger if only my name were different! Research shows that, if one's name appears high on the ballot papers, one has a small advantage. I had thought that if my name were, to take some of my neighbouring Members, perhaps Cormack, Budgen, Cash or even Boothroyd my majority might be 1,507 or 1,508.
Thinking about it more, it struck me that that political disability had loomed large in British political life generally. If one considers the people who have succeeded and those who have failed, one sees the principle in action. One has only to cast one's eyes across the list of British Prime Ministers this century to see exactly what the principle means. From Asquith to Attlee, from Balfour to Bonar Law to Baldwin, from Campbell-Bannerman to Churchill to Callaghan, the principle has been rampant through the political history of the 20th century. The great political casualties of the century have been the Thatchers and the Wilsons.
Indeed, during the debate yesterday, looking at the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I thought that there but for the alphabet would not be a man reduced to such a sorry parlance. If his name were not Waldegrave, he surely would not be the Minister for filing cabinets and name badges for ticket inspectors. I noted that the Prime Minister, like Harold Macmillan before him, had taken the sensible precaution of coming slap in the alphabetical middle.

543
Hon. Members will notice that in selecting a constituency—Cannock and Burntwood—I chose one very near to the beginning of the alphabet to reverse the principle that I have been describing so far. It is in south Staffordshire. It is the heart, the quintessence, of middle England. It contains the towns of Cannock, Hednesford and Burntwood. Hednesford was particularly proud this week as its football team reached the final of the Welsh cup. I will not detain hon. Members with the mysteries of how a town in Staffordshire can reach the final of the Welsh cup, but I am sure that the House would wish to congratulate the team on that splendid achievement.
It has the beauties of Cannock Chase on its doorstep. Its people hewed coal for 100 years and are now having to find a different future. Its history is that of England itself. It was represented in the House for 25 years after the second world war by Jennie Lee, whom Labour Members remember particularly fondly, and who I also associate with adult education. It was inhabited by people such as the present Conservative hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for a time and by Gwilym Roberts, who will be remembered as a warm, passionate and committed Welshman. I am happy to report that last week he was triumphantly re-elected to Cannock Chase district council. Part of the constituency was represented for a time by the present hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). I pay tribute to him for the friendship and support that he showed me on coming to the House.
My immediate predecessor was Gerald Howarth, with whom I totally disagreed on everything. However—this is a tribute to him and me—we managed to maintain enough mutual respect to conduct a reasonably civilised election campaign. I acknowledge the work that he did for the people of the constituency and offer him just one word of consolation at this moment of disappointment for him. As one of the most fervent torch bearers for the handbag across the water, the present disposition of the House and of his party may not prove to be so congenial to him now as it was then.
As we have heard, many new hon. Members point to the contrast between what happens in this House and the din and clash of opinions outside—I refer especially to those who come hot foot from election contests in marginal seats—the subjects that people were talking about in the election. Like the miners in my constituency, who want to talk about the threat of privatising the only remaining coal mine. Or the blight caused by opencast mining ripping apart the environment. Or the distinction of having the first toll road—at least for 300 years—being driven through their countryside. They want to talk about cuts in the education system and about why there are no houses for the young people or enough jobs. They want to talk about such issues and they ask what the House is doing about them. Instead we find the ritual confrontations, the impassioned speeches to the near-empty Benches, the votes of which the result is already known. People outside ask what is going on—what is the House doing?
It is a fact—although it may be an unpalatable one—that this country has never taken the business of democracy very seriously. We have taken the idea of strong government and a strong executive very seriously
544
but not democracy. Indeed, only half a century ago, in a classic formula, the Tory Leo Amery, when describing our system of government, said that it was
"government of the people, for the people, with but not by the people."
It was said of Leo Amery himself that if he had been just half a head higher, and if his speeches has been half an hour shorter, he might have become Prime Minister.
This process is now being taken much further. We already have the most centralised, concentrated and secretive system of government in the western world and the Government are now removing the existing arenas in which people can argue, do politics and disagree. We have the most anti-pluralist Government presiding over the historic emasculation of local government, sweeping away diversity, pluralism and independence wherever they can find them.
In the spirit of non-contentiousness that distinguishes these maiden speeches, I say with all seriousness that an older Conservative tradition would have been extremely worried about such tendencies. It was that tradition which used to taunt the Opposition about their centralising tendencies and their ambitions to strip local government of its powers. Yet these are exactly the characteristics that have distinguished the past 13 years of Conservative party rule.
My final remarks will cover education because it is my trade. I have spent my life in education and I feel deeply and passionately about it. There is much to talk about, especially what is happening, to universities and the threat to adult education in which I work. But it is about schools and the government of schools that I particulary want to talk. I have worked a great deal with school governors in the past few years, and I am bound to say that I was a great enthusiast for the Government's school reforms and for the education Act of 1986 because I believed that it introduced a new partnership into schools.
The Gracious Speech mentions some changes that are to be made which will affect school governors. The Government have now betrayed—that is perhaps a strong word but not too strong a word—school governors. They are having to re-educate them in the task that they are being asked to perform. School governors thought that they had gone into the education system as volunteers—many were parents—to support their schools and the system. They are now being taught that there is to be no education system and that schools are to he pitted against schools, parents against parents and communities against communities. That will certainly be the consequence of enforcing universal opt out. Governors gave up their time believing that there was one system to care for all children, but they are now being told that the system is to be driven by market forces. It is not surprising that many of those people are now leaving school government in vast numbers because they are not prepared to do what the Government want. Therefore, the Government have huge recruitment problems for school governors as a direct consequence.
I return to where I began. I am grateful to have swapped the principle of alphabetical order for the principle of catching the Speaker's eye. I hope that that principle will continue and that we shall consign alphabetical order to the dustbin of history and that from now—at least sometimes—the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
6.45 pm
Mr. George Walden: May I say to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Wright) that my name is Walden and my constituency is Buckingham—we should get together some time and drown our sorrows. The hon. Gentleman demonstrated the art of levity while at the same time combining it with substance and, I was glad to note, a hint of passion on the subject of education. He also seemed to speak with feeling about the constitution and the powers of this House. I recommend that, as a man of some wit, the hon. Gentleman should read, if he has not already done so, what is by far the best and wittiest study on that subject. It naturally comes from a Conservative writer, Mr. Ferdinand Mount. The hon. Gentleman is probably already aware of it, but I commend it to him. He will find, to his surprise, that he agrees with much of it.
I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the new "Speakerine", as she would be called in France. Were he here, I would also congratulate my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Education. I believe that post to be the most important in Government. Incidentally, on the constitution, I should like us to ditch some of the fusty old stuff about the great offices of state—I know of no more important office of state than that of Secretary of State for Education.
I have only a few minutes into which to cram my most recent prejudices, so I must get on. To sum up those prejudices, I believe that the main problems facing this country are not mentioned directly in the Queen's Speech. I believe that we are an under-educated and over-housed country, and I should like to explain why in about five minutes.
The first thing that I hope that my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State will do is to reconsider nursery education. The Queen's Speech talks about raising standards at all levels. For most people in this country there is no nursery level, so he will not have to worry about standards in that respect. However, there should be a nursery level, and the fact that we won the election does not mean that we can simply ditch that subject in the hope that the many women in this country will not notice. It is a subject that my right hon. Friend should reconsider because the bald and simple fact is that anyone with any money at all buys quality, structured education for his child in order to give that child a head start, thus helping to perpetuate the social divisiveness—I try to avoid the word but I cannot think of any other at the moment—that still lingers in our society. When talking about opportunity in education, let us remember that there can be no opportunity unless every child has a chance at the beginning to get his or her head start.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider carefully the statistics routinely churned out by the Department of Education, which are completely misleading and give the impression—I do not know what the latest figure is—that about 85 per cent. or 90 per cent. of children in this country benefit from pre-school education. That is simply not true. The figures include everything from child minding to highly amateur ad hoc organisations which come together to look after children and then drift apart. That is not what I mean by pre-school education, and it is not what exists in more enlightened countries, such as France.
546
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will continue his predecessor's policy of shaking up the bogus philosophy behind primary education in this country, which has caused enormous damage—as usual—to people at the bottom of the social pile. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister knows what I am talking about. The issue has been raised only in the past year, but we must try to change people's minds and have vastly higher expectations for young children in primary schools because they can do a great deal more than what they are asked to do at present.
The really important element missing from the Gracious Speech involves the organisation of secondary education. Some great educational changes and, indirectly, social changes loom before us. We shall not be able to avoid them, even if we want to. Indeed, I believe that we should not try to avoid them. In particular, I refer to what I hope will he the swift break-up of the comprehensive system. It is not deemed politic on the Conservative Benches to discuss that subject, and that is another reason why I raise it.
It is impossible for Conservative Members to continue to support grant-maintained schools and allow that policy to continue in the post-election rush in some semi-anarchic way and say that it is a grand thing. It will not be grand if that policy—which I wholeheartedly support—leads indirectly to a reversion to primitive selection. It is not just a matter of opting-out schools choosing to become grammar schools. They can do that if they wish. There will be de facto selection in most, probably all, opted-out schools because parents will queue outside them and headmasters and headmistresses, who are human beings, will, whether they know it or not, find ways of selecting the most promising pupils. That would be disastrous, because we would end up with a two-tier system.
The great paradox is that the origin of the comprehensive system, which I believe is a deeply mistaken philosophy, was a typically British, class-conscious reaction to the previous rather crude selective system which, although it produced some fine grammar schools— I know, because I went to one—also produced many wood-sawing schools in which huge numbers of potentially intelligent children were written off at the start.
If we allow the present rather disorganised policy of opting out to continue, there is a danger that we shall return to the earlier system. I am not against selection, but I am against negative selection. There must be a change in philosophy, which is beginning to occur—for example, in Wandsworth—to selection by aptitude. That is what happens in more advanced countries. We do not have it in this country because we are hung up on antique class consciousness in education as we are in respect of so many other aspects of our society. That deforms our vision of education.
We are not concerned about education: we are concerned about the social implications of the organisation of schools, which is totally different. As Confucius would say if he were with us today, the primary function of education is education, and not the social organisation of the country. If we follow that principle, we end up with a healthier system than the old, crude selective system, of which I was a lucky beneficiary but many from my part of the world were not. There is a danger that we shall come full circle and return inadvertently to the earlier system, which would be totally at variance to what I understand to be the Government's philosophy.

547
We shall have to change an entire mentality. We must make people in this country used to the idea that there is nothing wrong, second class or debilitating about being selected by aptitude to attend a largely—though not completely—technological, scientific, vocational school. Such things happen abroad and there is no reason why they should not happen here. We must aim for parity between the academic schools—I use that term in no exact sense—and the more vocational and scientific schools. We must then face the economic consequences of that cultural change.
We cannot have crummy schools as we had under the old crude selective system of secondary modern schools without the facilities or the maths, physics and craft design and technology teachers to provide those schools with social status. I acknowledge that that may be a contradiction in respect of what I said before, but those schools need status to attract people and to get over the terrible cultural prejudice against anything to do with technological or scientific schools.
Mr. Harry Greenway: We must not forget the fact that aptitude means ability in a particular area. When selecting by aptitude, one would thus be selecting by ability. Is that not the case?
Mr. Walden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to bring precision to my speech. He is right: there is no final distinction between aptitude and ability. However, there is a different cast of mind. With regard to ability, there is a danger of making a final judgment at the age of 11. Aptitude may imply spotting some ability that has yet to develop. I admit that there are no absolute categories, but it is possible to distinguish between them.
I am convinced that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the process because that is by far the most important subject which does not feature in the Queen's Speech. Necessarily, it entails a reorganisation of local government which may lead to the abolition of local education authorities. The Opposition tend to refer to the LEAs as a democratic process. At the risk of boring myself, I must state once more that they are not democratic when judged by their absolutely piffling turnouts. Most LEAs run education on the basis of effective turnouts of eligible voters of about 15 per cent.
The democratic argument is largely, though not wholly, cant and we should not allow it to stand in our way when we reconsider the issue, as we must if we are not to return to a dangerous and socially damaging form of selection. We must reconsider the role of the LEAs and be bold in our public opposition to the principle of comprehensive education.
I was once in the unfortunate position of having to explain comprehensive education to the communist Chinese Education Minister. He asked me to repeat my explanation—which, as I was trying to explain it in Chinese, proved to be extremely difficult. He simply stared at me in disbelief and said, "You mean to say that you in your country send people of all abilities and aptitudes to the same school and put them in the same class, whatever their progress?" I had to confirm that that happened in this sleepy old country of ours. He could not get over that. In China, for all their peccadillos in some areas, such as human rights, they are pretty hard-headed when it comes
548
to education. When they get rid of this communist nonsense we shall see the proof of that and see some results in China.
My second prejudice, which is linked with the first, is that I disagree fundamentally with the Government's housing policy. It is not the job of this or of any Government to tell people to own their homes. That is a primitive notion—a fetish which is doing enormous social and economic damage to this country, and eveyone knows that. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development knows it and has talked about our housing policy deforming our economy, as it has done—and badly —in the past.
The Queen's Speech states that the Government will look for ways to add to the already dangerously high number of people who own their own houses by changing the law here and there. Although I do not disapprove of those changes in principle—changes to leaseholds or whatever—it seems that there is a danger of the Government feeding house fetishism. They should not encourage home ownership. We do not need more home ownership. People need to have a choice of whether to buy and own their own house or to rent at a reasonable rent —the choice that people enjoy in France, Germany and America, which are all sophisticated countries in that regard. That should be Government policy, rather than to encourage the primitive fetishism of house ownership as the last Government but one did so catastrophically.
How many Members from both sides of the House have been on doorsteps during the election campaign and have been told by a mother, worried to death about her son, that he "got on the housing ladder"—encouraged by Government rhetoric—and fell off the ladder with a £20,000 debt. He is 21 or 22 and has a £20,000 debt before he has started in life. Should we be proud of that when we quote our figures of 67 or 68 per cent.? How high do we want to go? Do we want the country to seize up because of home ownership? In their frenzy to encourage home ownership, the Government seem to have lost sight of the fact that it is not good for business or for mobility. That is one of the reasons why it does not exist to the same extent in other countries.
I am not against home ownership—that would be a grotesque position—but the logic of the Government's philosophy should be not to encourage home ownership but to tell people that they will do their damnedest to give them an effective choice, on a level playing field, between owning and renting. That will overcome the problem. At present, the market is so distorted that there are 7 or 8 per cent. of people in private rented accommodation, while in other countries it is 30 or 40 per cent. 1 believe that Bangladesh and Switzerland are the only other countries with such high levels of home ownership.
In the present economic conjunction, things are going well. I am optimistic and I do not think that the Government are merely using rhetoric when they sound optimistic; I think that matters will improve. When people feel that they have a little more money in their pockets, one of the first things that they will do is to take out mortgages which are too big for them again, if the Government encourage them to do that. After our last experience of that, I hope that many people will understand the dangers.
To come full circle, this country has two major problems which were not mentioned in the Queen's Speech —we are under-educated and over-housed. To a large extent, the economy comes right if one gets those two

549
things right, and one solves many economic problems. Those two matters are fundamental. I have confidence that the Government will do largely what I would like them to do on education, but I am a little more diffident about their housing policy because their attitude to home ownership needs to be revised and cooled off. We are over-excited about home ownership. We must tell people to be sensible and not to get into this silly debt business, which has done them and the country so much harm and which has distorted our economy.
Finally, I must mention two constituency matters. The first concerns education for the educationally subnormal. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will note one concise question. The other day a constituent who has a 19-year-old daughter with a mental disability who has been to a special school asked me why her daughter's right to attend that school was cut off at the age of 19, when the Government look after other people's further education long after that age at a huge cost. Frankly, I could not find an answer, which is why I am asking my right hon. Friends to provide me with one. If they do not have an answer, I hope that they will do something so that we shall all have one in future.
Secondly, I have a constituency matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is a place called Maids' Moreton near the town of Buckingham in my constituency. There seems to be a presumption that the two places should join, although in neither case do the inhabitants want them to do so. The developer who wants them to join together is one of those persistent types, I am afraid. Why is there no arrangement whereby local government may say that there is a permanent presumption against development in the area because it would create too large a conurbation, and mostly because neither of the two communities wants it? I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend could take note of that.
I have probably spoken for too long, and I apologise.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before I call the next Member to speak I remind the House of Madam Speaker's ruling that there shall be a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock.
7.6 pm
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: May I add my congratulations to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointment and to all those hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today. The content of those speeches, which was sometimes amusing, was much appreciated by the House.
I had hoped to identify certain references in the Queen's Speech which would enable me to congratulate the Government on having advanced environmental protection in the list of priorities to be considered by the new Parliament. Regrettably, I find that I am unable to offer such congratulations. In reflecting upon certain proposed legislation which might have a bearing, I am concerned that the national lottery Bill may be targeted too narrowly. There must be provision for funding to spill over from heritage projects to encompass remedial environmental works, which are so often absolutely vital, and to commit complete and meaningful preservation of sites and buildings. In that regard, I ask the Government to learn from the justified criticism made of those bodies which have not managed to develop a co-ordinated approach to
550
preserving our heritage in Northern Ireland. Nor do I expect that the intended housing, land and urban development Bill, which will bring another quango into being—the urban regeneration agency—will resolve that long-standing and increasing problem.
My scepticism is based upon the Northern Ireland experience with such bodies, but I shall not digress into a topic about which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) has such a close knowledge. From my experience, all too often such bodies tend to theorise on the problem rather than to embark upon practical measures to remedy obvious disadvantages and to arrest further decay.
I understand that the proposed green Bill is in hand, but apparently it will have to await a suitable slot in the crowded parliamentary timetable. That does nothing to convince me that sufficient priority has been given to the subject.
Perhaps the Government are still a prisoner of the former Prime Minister's vision of the great motor car economy and will not face the unpalatable fact that economic recovery alone those lines spells ecological disaster. To borrow a summary from a recent Sunday newspaper, it spells more cars, more factories to build them, more roads to carry them and more toxic fumes.
However, being of a magnanimous nature I accept that the 1990 White Paper on the environment covered everything from the stratosphere to the street corner. The Government were careful to include it in the Conservative manifesto on page 43, but the great issues continue to be addressed only on paper.
I accept that the Prime Minister was one of the first world leaders to announce his intention to attend next month's earth summit in Rio de Janeiro and I appreciate that the proposed environment agency will try to achieve wonderful things. The agency will collate the work of the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, regulate the waste operations of local authorities and provide us with annual state-of-theenvironment reports.
That is all very commendable, but is there not just the suggestion of another army of paper tigers and another paper mountain? Is not this further consideration of the problems rather than action upon them? Are matters most urgent not developing at too leisurely a pace? Of course., there can be merit in hastening slowly, but we in Northern Ireland have had far too much of the snail's pace approach for far too long. We cannot draw limited comfort from some possible momentum in the proposed legislation.
Northern Ireland will undoubtedly be ignored and excluded yet again. I wish to caution the House on the basis of the previous Government's record on such matters in the Province. Following the publication of the Rossi report, I welcomed its recommendations and laid particular emphasis on recommendation 26 regarding the creation of a Northern Ireland environment agency. I did so enthusiastically not only on behalf of my party but in recognition of the widespread demand for such a body from a wide cross-section of informed opinion in the Province.
I share the opinions of the Select Committee on the Environment which catalogued the defects, weaknesses and difficulties that had arisen in the management of Northern Ireland. I use that term deliberately because the Province enjoys, not democratic government, but an unco-ordinated system operated by appointees and

551
professional officers. I should like to know how I can repose trust in the Government's avowed environmental commitment when what I believe to be the central recommendation of the Rossi report has been rejected.
Surely in this matter it would have been useful to test such a structure in Northern Ireland, especially as the Government have not hesitated in the past to inflict experimental systems on the Province with no regard for the wishes of the people there. I would not wish Great Britain to have expectations raised, as happened in Northern Ireland, and then to suffer the disappointment of finding that the shadow, not the substance, became the reality.
The Government are failing to meet their obligations to protect internationally important areas for birds, particularly within Northern Ireland. A new Royal Society for the Protection of Birds' report reviews the Government's performance in protecting wildlife sites under the European Community birds directive and the Ramsar convention. The report highlights the
"appalling designation record in Northern Ireland",
where to date, of the 17 internationally recognised important bird areas in the Province, only two have been given any designation: Lough Neagh-Lough Beg, which was designated a Ramsar site in 1976, and Swan island, in Lough Larne, which was designated as a special protection area earlier this year. RSPB studies show that a further II unprotected, important bird sites in Northern Ireland are threatened by damaging development proposals, poor management or neglect.
At the present overall United Kingdom designation rate of only four sites a year, these internationally important areas will not be fully protected until the year 2040. Many will be destroyed before designation occurs. A comparison with other EC member states shows that Denmark and Belgium should complete their designations by 1992, with only the Netherlands achieving completion later than the United Kingdom. The total United Kingdom land area designated to date is less than 1 per cent. compared with more than 20 per cent. in Denmark.
The report on sites of special scientific interest in the 1990s, "A Check on the Health of Internationally Important Bird Areas", also shows that hundreds of important wildlife sites have been damaged or destroyed since 1981.
I call on the new Government to provide substantial, additional resources for environmental departments and statutory conservation agencies; to promise to complete all remaining designations of Ramsar sites within five years; and to make a firm commitment to protect these areas, allowing development only in the most exceptional circumstances. My call is for effective action throughout the United Kingdom to address now as a matter literally of life and death the issues of effective environmental protection and regeneration.
7.16 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I have enjoyed immensely listening to many outstanding maiden speeches this afternoon. I do not wish to deal with any one particular speech, but I will speak about urban problems and the urban regeneration agency. For that reason, I was extremely interested in what was said by the hon. Member
552
for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). As the House will know, I was Member of Parliament for an inner-city seat in Liverpool for nine years. The hon. Gentleman's comments were reminiscent of many of the problems that I experienced in Liverpool some years ago. Therefore, I was particularly concerned by what he said about Coventry. The problems have not gone away either in Coventry or in many other urban conurbations.
As the House may remember, I was a youth and social worker for many years before I came to the House. I was appointed by Lord Wilson, as he now is, as leader of one of the largest community projects of the Home Office that was concerned with urban problems. The hallmarks of the inner city are well known: deprived communities, unskilled labour, poor housing, race relations problems, rundown small firms and high unemployment. Inner-city areas got those hallmarks because over the years the poorest and least skilled congregated usually where they landed from boats—for example, in Liverpool and London—or at the centres of industry, such as the textile industry in Manchester. Small firms existed in those areas and were interdependent.
Over the past 25 years modern technology, high rents and the demolition of slums have resulted in the population moving from inner-city areas to outer city areas. The vast council estates of the 1950s and 1960s meant the wholesale displacement from the inner city to the outer city of poor and unskilled workers. Although the small firms continued there, they declined.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East used the image of a doughnut, but the place where the jam once was is now an empty hole. The people have departed and the jobs have gone. The inner cities are derelict, rundown and depressed areas. We are witnessing an attempt by the Government—and they have poured thousands and millions of pounds into it—to put the jam back into the inner city. I would normally be critical of pouring money into solving such problems, but I welcome the Government's announcement in the Queen's Speech about the setting up of an urban rengeneration agency, which is another attempt to deal with the problem. There have been many attempts and you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Labour Administrations of the 1960s and 1970s set up many projects, as did the Conservative Government in the 1980s. The projects all had interesting names, but they often bore little relationship to what they did.
The Government have announced another attempt to revive the inner cities, but the jam will not be put back into the inner cities unless new methods of transportation are introduced. Unless motorways and the road transport networks go right into the inner city—to the point where jobs could be created and the enterprise zones and the urban development corporations are located—one will not get real commercial, industrial and manufacturing growth. The inner cities need new rail heads. The trouble with the railway stations in the principal cities is that it is impossible to drive large articulated vehicles to them. Therefore, it is not possible to use the railways to transport equipment and goods out of the inner city. Poor transport links rule out a revival in the inner cities.
The revival is taking place in the outer cities. It is happening at the junctions of motorways and on the outskirts of the major conurbations where all the new warehouses and factories have been built. Instead of

553
people wanting to return to the inner cities, the movement is from them to edges of the cities, to the motorway junctions and to the areas beyond them to new towns.
The Government are brave to introduce another agency. However, despite the millions of pounds that have been poured into the inner cities by Labour and Conservative Governments, the inner cities continue to decline because there is no way of creating wealth and of housing people: the people have gone. Those who remain are the poorest, the most deprived and the unemployed and they have no scope or future.
I wish to consider what I hope that the urban regeneration agency will do. In my book "New Life for Old Cities" I considered how urban areas could be regenerated. I am glad to say that the Government followed most of my recommendations, but they have not done the trick. In the 1980s, the Secretary of State will remember that I wrote another book, entitled "Public Land Utilisation Management Schemes" which was an attempt to show how to get rid of derelict and vacant land in public ownership. The then Secretary of State for the Environment set up a register to identify the amount of publicly owned vacant land. At its height, it amounted to 116,000 acres, but since then the figure has dropped to 80,000 acres. However, there is still much public vacant land which could be used. "PLUMS" proposed that public authority land should not he confiscated but valued and a share certificate issued for that value. The land should then be marketed. Local authorities do not have the marketing ability to enable the value of the land to grow.
I hope that the new agency will follow my proposal of exchanging derelict and vacant land in public ownership—owned by local authorities and utilities—for a certificate which will grow in value as the land is marketed. That is why I intervened in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ask whether the new agency would have marketing powers. In the past, land has been compulsorily purchased and taken away from the public authorities, but they should share in its increased value—increased as a result of marketing and as a result of being passed over to the new urban regeneration agency. That agency will be headed by my former right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, Mr. Peter Walker, so it is bound to be successful in its attempts to tackle the problems.
I am concerned about vacant land in the inner cities, but the problem can be solved by building on it. However, that will not happen if we do not do something about the problems of housing and job creation in those areas. I hope that the new agency will get hold of the land and give it to private developers who will do something with it. As they build factories, houses and shops, the value of the site will go up and the local authority will benefit from that increase in value because the value of its shares will increase. That must be the right approach.
There is a second reason why the inner cities should be revived and that is illustrated by my experience in my constituency in south Devon, which is surrounded by Plymouth—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I must point out to the hon. Member that his time is up.
7.27 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: May I add my congratulations to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointment and thank you for calling me to speak in the House for the first time?
I want to follow the tradition of the House by saying something briefly—it will be brief because of the time limitation—about my predecessors in Walthamstow. The seat of Walthamstow, West, which is part of the present constituency, was held shortly after the war by Clement Attlee, who was a Member of great distinction and Prime Minister for some years after the war. From 1970 to 1987, Walthamstow was represented by Eric Deakins who, I am sure, hon. Members on both sides will remember with respect and affection. From 1987 to 1992, Walthamstow was represented by Hugo Summerson. It would be foolish to pretend that he and I agreed politically, but I know that he did his best to represent the issues and concerns of the people of Walthamstow. I certainly intend to follow his example.
I want to refer particularly to some of the proposals in the Queen's Speech that affect local government, housing and homelessness. It comes as no great surprise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) remarked, that the vast majority of constituency problems brought to hon. Members are about housing. Given the scale of the housing problem in London and in the country as a whole, I find the sections of the Queen's Speech devoted to housing remarkably thin. There are no serious proposals in the Gracious Speech to tackle the problems of homelessness, and I fear that those problems will worsen in the future.
There are various reasons why the situation is unlikely to improve. In east London, in the area that I represent, Bow county court deals with most of the repossession cases from Walthamstow, which has the second highest number of repossessions in Britain—that in an area in which, by London standards, house prices are extremely low. In many cases, the banks and building societies, the prime lenders, seem uninterested and unwilling to work with other agencies which are trying to do something about repossessions and debt management.
A day conference was recently called by my borough council. It was attended by fuel providers, members of citizens advice bureaux and representatives of council departments, but the banks and building societies refused to participate. The problem of repossessions will continue despite the odd half per cent. reduction in interest rates. It will continue so long as people are made redundant and we live with the present rate of unemployment.
We have heard about proposals to improve the rights of tenants to have repairs and improvements made to their properties. My immediate reaction to what has been suggested is that it is another phoney charter, with the blame being placed everywhere but with the Government. Local authorities are being denied the resources to do the repairs, and at the same time are being blamed for failing to deliver what their tenants need.
It is meaningless to say that tenants living in larger estates should have the right to improve their properties when millions of pounds are required to rejuvenate those blocks and remedy structural problems. Such a task is far beyond the capacity of individual tenants. Consider what

555
has happened in an area such as mine in recent years. I think of an estate that is now part of a housing action trust, one of the few such trusts that have been established.
Some years ago, the borough council produced a scheme for the total redevelopment of that estate, with the replacement of tower blocks by low-rise property. The Government were approached, but they said that the local authority could not be allowed to spend the necessary money. After protracted discussions with tenants, the formation of a tenant-controlled company was proposed. That would have enabled the company to do the work and have access to private money. The scheme was thought through and plans drawn up, but again the Government turned down the scheme.
In other words, when tenants approach the Government with proposals for real tenant involvement and power, the Government show no interest. As I say, that estate is now part of a housing action trust. The Government now have a responsibility, having forced the tenants down that path, to make sure that the redevelopment of the estate is made possible.
I welcome the proposals in the Queen's Speech on the rights of leaseholders. I hope that the legislation will do more than simply give leaseholders the right to acquire freeholds and extend their leases. Leaseholders should have the right to change or choose managing agents and to examine and, if necessary, challenge freeholders' accounts to see whether extortionate service charges are being imposed. Freeholders and landlords should have more responsibilities and be obliged to carry out repairs and improvements. After all, if council tenants are to have the right to have repairs done, the same right should apply to private tenants.
The Asylum Bill will have great impact in my constituency, which has many asylum seekers and various ethnic minorities. Walthamstow has the largest Pakistani community in London. Between 1980 and 1990, I chaired an inquiry into racial harassment in Waltham Forest. It was horrendous to hear what some people told the inquiry about their daily experiences. At one extreme, there were cases of violence, including physical assault and arson. There have been murders in my constituency in recent years. Letter boxes are sealed because people are scared that petrol will be poured through and set alight.
At the other extreme are incidents that might be thought of as trivial, such as verbal abuse and the use of graffiti. But for people who cannot step out of their front doors, go to the shops or take their children to the park, the threat of abuse is not trivial. When that happens every day, it has a great effect on the quality of people's lives.
Legislation such as the Asylum Bill generates a bad atmosphere. When the Bill was last debated, there was much talk of illegal immigration, social security scandals and other forms of criminality. Whenever such statements are made, especially by senior politicians, the suggestion is put about that certain communities are not to be trusted, and that in turn gives the green light to harassment. Indeed, it gives a certain respectability to harassment. That has a serious impact on the daily lives of many of my constituents.
Local voluntary organisations and local authorities must deal with the consequences, especially on housing estates. I regret that the Asylum Bill is to be reintroduced.
556
I hope that, at least, the debate this time will be conducted in a more temperate way and that the Minister will have conducted genuine consultation before the measure is published. Rather than that Bill, my constituents need legislation to deal with harassment and discrimination. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will reconsider their decision to reintroduce the Asylum Bill.
7.37 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: I wish at the outset to offer you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my congratulations on your appointment. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on his fluent maiden speech. I am sure that we shall hear much more from him on a subject about which he clearly knows a lot.
I am in an awkward position because mine is not a maiden speech, nor is it a retread speech. I suggested to an hon. Friend that I was a re-retread, to which he replied that I must have worn rather thin. My physical appearance gives the lie to that.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Charles Morrison, who was respected by hon. Members in all parts of the House for his decency, common sense and independence of spirit. He will be sorely missed. I wish him a happy retirement.
I am privileged to represent the beautiful constituency of Devizes. It is an area of great variety, stretching from Salisbury plain in the south to north of Swindon, and the town of Highworth, in the north. It takes in an enormous number of interests, from defence through agriculture to car manufacturing at the Rover and Honda plants around Swindon. The variety of interests of my constituents that I shall be pursuing here in the coming years will keep me busy. I am fortunate to represent that great constituency.
During the recession, from which thankfully we are beginning to emerge, the construction industry—especially its smaller parts, of which there are many examples in my constituency—was hard hit. Anything that revives interest and confidence in the housing market will be greeted with great relief, and with that in mind I welcome the references in the Gracious Speech to tenants' rights. The dramatic achievements in extending the variety of housing tenure and, therefore, choice since 1979 have together formed one of the most profound sea changes of the past decade.
We have broken away irrevocably from the segregated housing of the post-war years, that soul-destroying and socially divisive separation between council and owner-occupied housing. The variety of forms of tenure and of housing agencies, not least the still growing housing association movement and the birth of other new agencies such as housing action trusts, have extended beyond recognition the frontiers of individual housing choice. New joint ventures by housing authorities will take that process still further, and I hope that we shall give them every encouragement.
I welcome the increased funding for the Housing Corporation this year, which I hope will be used in imaginative and sensible ways. It has been said by several hon. Members this evening that homelessness is of concern to us all wherever it arises, and I believe that we now have the means to tackle it in a constructive way. We need a co-ordinated approach and a continuing will to achieve it.
I welcome also the proposal to extend the rent-to-mortgage scheme to England from north of the border. When wearing another hat, I was somewhat involved in

557
the original concept of the scheme. I believe that it provides another important avenue of choice for people's homes. I wish the proposal, a fair wind.
At the end of the day, choice is at the root of the Government's philosophy. I am delighted to see that in the Gracious Speech we are not resting on our laurels. There is so much further to go, especially in rural areas such as that which I now have the honour to represent. Choice is meaningful, however, only when it is available to all. I appreciate that we cannot reach that stage overnight and that there is much more to do, but at the same time I believe that the impetus must come from the Government over the next five years. We must show that we shall extend choice as far as we can.
In rural areas there is a major problem in providing affordable housing for local people both for purchase and for rent. So long as it continues, the concept of choice in such areas is of necessity severely qualified. There are those who call for major council house building programmes to meet the problem. I do not subscribe to that view. Council housing has a valuable role in providing one element of choice, but I do not believe that returning, as some Opposition Members have suggested, to massive council house building programmes would bring any long-term benefit to the provision of choice. There are better ways of meeting the problem.
First, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to try to ensure that rural housing associations are especially encouraged and that the special problems of geography and population densities in rural areas are recognised. I ask them to ensure that the issue of affordability in rural areas is properly addressed and that housing associations in such areas are given a sufficient share of available resources to meet their particular problems.
Secondly, I ask that local housing associations are encouraged further in their role as enablers rather than providers, and as co-ordinators of imaginative initiatives that can meet the problems of rural housing in a cost-effective and adequate way.
In that context I mention briefly the thorny issue of receipts from council house sales. I am fully aware of the macro-economic considerations that led to the restriction on their use as capital, and I do not argue with those considerations, but we must understand that it is difficult for those who see housing need around them to understand why money which has been raised from housing cannot be spent towards meeting that need. Perhaps my right hon. and hon. Friends will explore with the Treasury the possibility of using receipts from council house sales, not as capital—I understand the difficulties of doing that—but in a different and more revenue-based way as part of the enabling role of housing authorities in providing affordable housing for rent in conjunction with the private sector. That might provide an avenue, and I hope that that approach will be explored. I leave that thought with my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Housing still presents the Government with a vital and exciting challenge. It is one that lies at the heart of the concept of choice, which is central to the quality of life and is the bedrock of individual aspirations. I find it heartening to know that the Government remain determined and enthusiastic about meeting the challenge.
7.45 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: First, Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. For the record, I wish genuinely also to applaud the election and appointment of Madam Speaker, which was obviously an historic occasion.
I pay tribute to the work done by my predecessor, Dave Nellist, and in turn to his predecessor, Bill Wilson, and also his predecessor, the late Dick Crossman. The House will understand later why I have linked all three of my predecessors.
During different periods Dave Nellist and Bill Wilson, and to a certain extent Dick Crossman, all talked about two particular issues. Dave Nellist and Bill Wilson certainly talked about unemployment and problems associated with it. About 20 years earlier, shortly before the then Labour Government, Bill Wilson spoke of crime being associated with unemployment. Going back further, to 1945, we find Dick Crossman talking about the reconstruction of Europe and of Britain, which again raised the issue of unemployment. My predecessors and the issues to which I have referred were interrelated during different periods.
Coventry, South-East has its fair share of unemployment. Some of the area's major industries have been privatised, and I have been interested to listen to other hon. Members talk about privatisation. When it comes to privatisation, my constituents consider primarily their future prosperity and employment. That is certainly their position in the context of the railways and of General Plessey Telecom. Earlier on, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) mentioned Jaguar. Everyone is concerned about unemployment for it is a national problem.
In the past, Coventry was famous for its innovation and its employment prospects. But for the employment prospects, I should not have gone to Coventry. I should probably have gone elsewhere, and some people in Coventry may think that that would have been a good idea.
Coventry, South-East has employment problems and an inner city problem. Dick Crossman comes into that, because when he was a Minister he said that the then Labour Government would tackle inner city problems. He certainly produced innovative ideas. Some Conservative Members may argue that that Government's policies arid ideas did not necessarily lead to success. I spent 20 years in local government, and I can say that if there was a lack of success it was because of the lack of resources provided by the Government and their predecessor. There was a switch of emphasis and of policies. An example would be the reduction in urban aid grant. Those with experience of local government will know what I am talking about. There are many other examples.
Coventry, South-East, like the rest of the country, suffers from a lack of resources to develop its education system. We need resources for school building repairs, for building new schools and for better teacher training. Those problems should be dealt with; they are more important than talk of tax reductions.
Coventry, South-East has a major council housing problem because of the lack of Government resources to carry out the necessary repairs and to deal with homelessness; which means building homes for people who cannot afford to buy in the private sector. A great

559
many people in the private sector are being subjected to mortgage foreclosures, and the numbers are rising in my area.
There has been much talk of home ownership from the Government and from previous Conservative Governments. Freedom to choose does not exist without economic freedom, and my constituency has its fair share of people without that.
We have another problem, which is not peculiar to Coventry, South-East. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) touched on it earlier when he mentioned the Asylum Bill. That Bill would have been all right if it had been conceived in justice. Instead, it was conceived in panic, because of Europe's fear of migrations from the east and the south. In many parts of Europe there is a phobia about those migrations, which are seen as a threat, and the Bill was one of the panic measures adopted by European Ministers.
To return to Dick Crossman, in 1945 we were going through the same sort of major debate on Britain's relations with Europe as we are having today—the "will she, won't she" debate. The question is whether we become more involved in Europe. The present Government, and former Governments, have procrastinated on that, but the Government have just won an election and it is time they clarified their position on Europe. If they do not want to be members, let them tell the country so. If they want to be only half-hearted members, let them tell the country so. But they should not mislead the country into thinking that they are involved in hard negotiations over Britain's rights when in fact they are putting on a charade—a half-hearted attempt to kid the Europeans that we want to play a major part as members of the European Community.
There was no real vision in the Queen's Speech. Some of my colleagues have already mentioned the plight in which the United States finds itself, and the trends in our inner cities which could lead to a similar situation here. The Queen's Speech was disappointing in that respect. There is no vision in the United States, either, and here we play petty party politics while a number of aspects of policy remain quite wrong. The speech did not deal with the fundamental problems of this country.
We have had debates about devolution for Scotland and Wales, but what about devolution for England? What about taking more power away from the English centre and giving it to people to exercise more constructively in new forms of regional government? The test for Europe will certainly be how effective regional government here can be.
I am honoured to have taken part in this debate, and I hope to serve the people of Coventry, South-East and the people of this country to the best of my ability.
7.54 pm
Sir David Mitchell: I add my sincere congratulations to those of many others who have expressed their delight at seeing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Chair today.
With great pleasure, too, I follow the tradition of congratulating the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on his maiden speech. His constituency has a reputation of being one with a lively representative in the House, and the hon. Gentleman did not fail to
560
follow in that tradition, so well set by his predecessor Dave Nellist, who was always controversial and who always put his case forcefully to the House. I am not the only Member who will look forward with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has to say in future.
I do not want to detain the House long, and in any case I will not be allowed to do so. I want to raise an environmental matter which is of considerable importance to my constituency and which is already causing anxiety and even fear there.
On 21 June, the summer solstice arrives and large numbers of hippies, itinerants and new-age travellers can be expected. Some of my constituents call them by names that cannot be expressed in parliamentary language. Large numbers are expected, and I prophesy that they will assemble in my part of Hampshire from the end of May. The same happened last year and the year before, and each time more of them came. Last year, about 4,500 camped at Rats Lodge in Longstock and, had it not rained, considerably more of them would have come. One can only wonder what will happen this year if there is fine weather.
I noticed that on the spring bank holiday about 30,000 people attended a pop festival at Lechlade in Gloucestershire, and if more itinerants and hippies come to my constituency in the pre-solstice period, the noise disturbance, the petty crime and the filth that they will leave behind will cause my constituents great anxiety. Such concern was well expressed last week when a public meeting was held in the town hall at Stockbridge. It was so full that 50 people had to be turned away—a good reflection of the extent of public anxiety.
The motion on the Loyal Address was seconded by my hon. and filial Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) with many happy turns of phrase. The Queen's Speech stated:
"My Government will work both at home and abroad to protect the environment. They will ensure that the environment remains a key issue in all policy making".
It is certainly a key issue in Hampshire, and I want to raise two related problems with the Minister today—first, the parking of several hundred caravans, dormobiles and cars in a mass trespass by new-age travellers; and, secondly, the immensely noisy pop festival, for which the travellers provide the core and general set-up.
When large numbers of caravans arrive, landowners can ask the police to move them on. The police, using section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986, can do just that. In parenthesis, I should say that I have immense praise for the way in which the Hampshire constabulary has operated, avoiding confrontation but being firm and fair at the same time. The police move them on, but the question is where they move them on to. In Hampshire, they move them on to a loophole in the law, and it is that loophole that I want Ministers to plug as soon as possible.
Hampshire has 400 miles of green lanes. Many are classified as BOATS—bridleways open to all traffic. The verges are not marked, there are no kerb stones, there is no proper delineation and they have been there for some hundreds of years. When they are moved on, the travellers settle on either side of those green lanes. The police cannot know whether they are on private land or on a public right of way because there is no clear marking. If they are unable to prove that a traveller is on private land, they cannot evict him using section 39 of the Public Order Act. The

561
police are then inhibited because they know that if they make a mistake they can be sued for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.
One simple solution available to the Government is to extend section 39 to apply to green lanes, public rights of way and roads through the countryside at the discretion of the police. We are dealing not with a traffic problem but with a public order matter.
When I raised the matter in the House on 12 December 1991, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd)—agreed to suggest that a meeting be arranged between the Departments of the Environment and Transport and the Home Office. I am grateful to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment for arranging that meeting in February with representatives of the police and Hampshire county council. The Minister recognised that action was and is required and I thought that I saw his hand in the Conservative party's manifesto during the general election which said that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 would be reviewed with the aim of reducing the nuisance of illegal encampment. That proposal is welcome, but it is not in the Gracious Speech and I and many of my constituents are worried about what will happen as the solstice approaches this year if there has been no change in the law. I have to tell Ministers in the Department of the Environment that I think that we are right to call for action now to deal with the matter.
There is a second issue that I wish to touch on briefly —where to site the noisy, pop festival for which the travellers now choose the site, provide the core and much of the organisation. I want to make three points. First, such pop festivals will take place; the question is where. If the police just move people on, there comes a time when those people will stop somewhere. They cannot spirit 6,000 or 8,000 people into thin air. That somewhere will go on being ill-thought-out, unprepared, invariably unsuitable and a confounded nuisance to those who live nearby. Clearly, we need a more constructive approach The Government, with the Secretary of State for the Environment in the lead, should identify sites far away from habitation so that the squatters can be moved to those particular places.
There is one Government Department that can help. The Ministry of Defence has just such sites in its possession. I have no doubt that it will defend its land with as much vigour as it would defend our shores in the event of an enemy attack. Nevertheless, in the wider issue of the environment it is right that the Ministry should be asked to identify sites well away from other people and habitation and make them available in that way.
There are a number of other points that I should like to make, but because of the time factor I shall close by saying that Hampshire county council will soon be in a position to become "designated", with all the benefits which will flow from that, having provided within the county an adequate number of gipsy sites. But the county council expects that it will take six months for the Minister to approve designation when the application is made. Therefore, I want to make a plea to the Minister that when that application comes to the Department of the Environment it should be turned around in six weeks, not six months. Slow decisions are not necessarily any better than quick ones and this matter calls for a fast and effective decision. With those words, I urge Ministers to take action.
8.4 pm
Ms. Estelle Morris: My first task is to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your new post and wish you every happiness during the time that you occupy it.
I am the first Member for Birmingham, Yardley to make a maiden speech from the Opposition Benches for some 30 years, and I am only the second Member for Birmingham, Yardley to make a maiden speech from the Opposition Benches in some half a century. Yardley has a reputation for returning a Member of Parliament from the party which goes on to form the Government. That will cause disappointment on both sides of the House—on the Government side because Yardley did not follow the country, and on the Opposition Benches because the country did not follow Yardley. Needless to say, on this occasion I trust in the good political sense of the electorate of Yardley.
My immediate predecessor was David Gilroy Bevan. His great pride was that he was Brummie born and bred and he had a long record of service to the city of Birmingham in this House and in local authorities within Birmingham. There is a wide gulf between us politically, but whenever our paths crossed he was most courteous. He was also most generous in defeat, for which I thank him.
My last Labour predecessors from Yardley were Syd Tierney and Ioan Evans, both highly respected Members of the House and the Labour party. I was delighted to have Syd Tierney campaign for me in Yardley during the election. Having helped to win the marginal seat of Yardley for Labour, he then returned to his home in the north-east to help win the marginal seat of Barrow and Furness for Labour. Therefore, we have much to be grateful to Syd Tierney for.
My constituency is on the south-east side of Birmingham, adjacent to the national exhibition centre and Birmingham international airport. It relies for employment mainly on manufacturing industry within Birmingham and neighbouring Coventry. The economic prosperity of manufacturing in the west midlands region is the main factor which determines the economic prosperity of my constituents and I hope that in the next few years we shall see an upturn in the fortunes of that industry.
I have spent the past 18 years in education. I have worked in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham), who has just made his maiden speech. It is on the subject of education that I wish to address a few remarks to the House. I have in my constituency two comprehensive schools and many more primary schools, which offer a good standard of education to their pupils and communities. That is a great achievement when set against the background of change, uncertainty and underfunding that education has had to face.
When I met people during the election the one thing that they wanted for education was stability. They are fed up with ministerial changes of mind. As soon as one ministerial directive has been answered, it is countered with another and they start again. They also want stability of funding so that head teachers do not have to spend their time applying to this or that Government Department for funding for this or that project in order to educate the children whom they seek to serve.
Those who want stability in education will be deeply disturbed by the recent talk of the possible reintroduction

563
of selection in secondary schools. If we were to reintroduce selection it would be the biggest upheaval that schools have had to face in recent decades, and the biggest danger to children's education that they have had to face in their lifetime.
I call upon the Government to end the speculation that selection may be returning by making it clear that they will accept no proposals for reorganisation from local authority or grant-maintained schools which include an element of selection either on academic ability or on aptitude for a particular subject. Those who favour selection advance it as a means of raising standards and widening choice. It is neither. Selection gives more power to schools and less choice to parents. Many parents will be powerless to exert any influence over the schools their children attend, which runs counter to the Government's stated intention of trying to increase parental choice.
The other side of the selection coin is rejection. For every pupil whose self-esteem is raised because he or she has been selected, the self-esteem of many other pupils is damagingly depressed by rejection. For every so-called first-choice school that attracts extra resources, there will be more so-called second-choice schools struggling to attract the resources that they need to raise standards.
It is impossible to devise a selection system, whether it be based on academic ability or subject aptitude, which does not hand the failure label to some children and the second-class label to some schools. That is no way to improve standards or widen choice. It favours the few at the expense of the rest. At the heart of any education policy should be a strategy, desire, and aim to raise the standard of every child's education and of every school. Selection will not do that.
During the general election campaign, parents and educationists spoke to me not of selection but of smaller class groups; of giving more time to teaching and less to form filling. Head teachers told me that they wanted to spend more time managing their schools and less time raising money to fund essential resources. They never referred to selection as a means of achieving those objectives. The Government ought to remove once and for all the spectre of selection from the education agenda on which this Session of Parliament is about to embark.
I am pleased to have made my maiden speech in a debate which embraces so many issues of concern to my constituents. I hope that in the months and years to come I shall speak again on their behalf. I am proud to represent my constituents and my party in the House, and I shall always do so to the best of my ability.
8.12 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: I have the privilege of succeeding Sir Neil Macfarlane, who held the seat of Sutton and Cheam for 18 years. He had a distinguished career, and he served as a Minister for seven years. Sir Neil's time as a sports Minister left a heavy mark on him, for he had to cope with both the Bradford fire tragedy and the Heysel stadium disaster. On a more cheerful note, Sir Neil was himself an enthusiastic sportsman. He was captain of the parliamentary golf society, and boasted proudly that over a five-year period he led it to only one victory.
564
Sutton and Cheam is fairly well known throughout the land partly through its association with entertainers, such as Harry Secombe, and its adopted son, Tony Hancock —who, wearing the expression of a disappointed basset hound, lived at 2 Railway cuttings, East Cheam. He brought laughter to millions, but the problem for fans seeking his home was that his address was entirely fictitious. Tony Hancock in fact lived at a far less interesting abode in north London.
My constituency lies 13 miles from Westminster, inside the M25. Today's quiet, leafy streets belie a heritage that dates back to neolithic times. In those days, man travelled by river. Transport is still an enormous issue today, and I doubt that the early dwellers would envy the 3,000 commuters who struggle up to London on Network SouthEast.
The rail journey from Sutton has become so hazardous that no passenger can predict the time of his or her arrival. One constituent told me that the 8·17 am train is now known as the 8·37 am train, because it is always 20 minutes late. The service has not been improved by British Rail's programme of cutting down trackside trees on the basis that falling leaves cause train delays. It is hardly surprising that there has been an outcry by my constituents, who feel that local beauty has been sacrificed by British Rail going for an easy but by no means proven option. It is more a case of whistling in the wind.
I welcome therefore the Government's plans for privatising British Rail. Meanwhile, I trust that the passengers' charter will come in useful. A refund on fares would at least sugar the pill.
I deliberately chose to speak on the subject of education in the debate on the Gracious Speech because Sutton's character is best represented by its excellence in schooling, which is very much the result of Government policies. There can be found in Sutton the best examples of the benefits of offering the widest possible choice. Our two grant-maintained grammar schools—Nonsuch and Sutton Manor—have made such a mark that they are easily holding their own in The Times list of top 250 schools in the country. Today, however, I will focus on another grant-maintained school which I find exciting and elevating every time that I visit it.
Only a few years ago, non-selective Cheam High was regarded as a sink school. It was in such disarray that one of its pupils was caught riding a motor bike through its corridors. The current headmaster, John Vaughan, rescued the situation and reintroduced discipline—for without it children cannot learn. Working with Master and Miss Average, he gave each child hope, a positive identity, and a sense of purpose. In short, he put into practice the Government's programme of vocational education.
The pupils of that school are put through the national vocational qualification course at 17-plus, and the results are so good that local employers actively seek to recruit those children. This September, the vocational studies will develop one stage further, when the school's 16-year-olds will be among the first in the country to start taking their BTEC diploma course—the second year of which has parity with an A-level. There is no doubt that it is perfectly possible for all children to be higher achievers, provided their route of learning is suited to their talents. The second year BTEC qualifies children for a university or polytechnic, and serves as the alternative route to higher education.

565
Academic achievements are worth while, but they are not sufficient in themselves. There is parental concern about the decline in the teaching of the Christian faith. It is a sad reflection that, in a recent survey, only 34 per cent. of the sample knew why Easter day is celebrated, prompting the Archbishop of York to comment:
"It makes me wonder what kind of religious education some of these children receive at school."
In the Education Reform Act 1988, the Government tried their best, in section 8, to provide for a "mainly Christian" education while taking into account other faiths. In practice, that is not always done. Local education authorities set the curriculum, and in some Sutton schools multiculture and multifaith teaching has developed so far that Christianity is reduced to just another faith to be taken down from the shelf, together with Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, and so on. The time has come to take stock of ourselves. We should not be shy of being a Christian country, and we ought to insist that a "mainly Christian" education means just that.
It is not surprising that children lose their way emotionally and spiritually when they have been denied true Christian teaching and know little of what it has to offer. I would like to know how the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 are working out in practice nationwide.
It would be surprising if I did not touch briefly on defence. Nine years ago I launched my pro-NATO organisation, Families for Defence. At that time, we challenged the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and won; but national security remains as important as ever. The cold war may be over, but today we face multiple dangers, with instability in many countries, together with growing nuclear proliferation.
Currently, three former Soviet republics—Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan—still hold nuclear weapons, and there is no clear picture of what they are going to do with them. The southern republics now have rapidly growing armies. Next door, Iran is building up an awesome arsenal of her own, and Iraq, far from being subdued by the Gulf war, is reasserting herself.
Not only should we monitor the plight of the Kurds; there is another human rights issue that has been forgotten. I refer to the 850 Kuwaitis known as "The Missing Ones": men, women and children, some only 10 years old, who were snatched from their homes during the occupation and taken to camps in Iraq. Fifteen months later, they are still being held. The International Red Cross has their names.
I regard it as intolerable that the world should forget about those people in the mistaken belief that, after the liberation of Kuwait, all has been satisfactorily resolved. That is not the case, and we have a duty to ensure that they are released and returned home. There are lessons to be learnt. This is yet another example of why we should appreciate that peace has not yet been established in the middle east. We must therefore be ready for every contingency, and must plan for future defence levels accordingly. We must maintain our armed forces at the most credible level.
While I accept that we must adapt to modern conditions, it is vital that we are certain that we know what we are doing, and make up our minds about our commitments. I hope that, during the restructuring process, we do not make decisions now only to regret them later in the crisis. I think that the time has come for us to
566
reaffirm our commitment to NATO. There has been a growing tendency in Europe to suggest that the American input is not necessary. I do not agree: we cannot do without the United States. In a major crisis, the United States is always there to help us, and the Gulf war was no exception. To exclude it would be a severe mistake, and would weaken the Alliance.
By the same token, satisfying the calls by the French and Germans for their own corps would serve no real purpose unless such corps were effectively associated with NATO. Otherwise, such action would undermine NATO and ultimately destroy it. It would do nothing for military effectiveness, and could seriously damage European harmony. In any case, we already have NATO's rapid reaction corps, commanded by the British and specifically designed to take on military tasks in and outside the normal NATO area.
I have raised the question of defence at the end of my speech, in particular, because my constituents in Sutton have frequently raised it with me. They come from courageous stock; they are dogged, and indomitable, and they are people whom I am enormously proud to represent.
8.23 pm
Ms. Ann Coffey: I congratulate you on your new position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and thank you for calling me.
My constituency, Stockport, forms part of the wider metropolitan borough of the same name. It was created after the boundary changes in 1983. My predecessor was Tony Favell, a man of strong beliefs and uncompromising principles. He had, I know, a great deal of affection for Stockport, and his constituents wish him well.
Stockport is a town with a strong sense of community responsibility. Many people give their time, in a voluntary capacity, raise funds for and run the numerous clubs that exist for the elderly and the disabled, and also youth organisations and sports clubs. The Council for Voluntary Service, the citizens advice bureaux, Age Concern and Victim Support co-ordinate the work of hundreds of volunteers who provide a valuable service for the town. Charnwood nursery, a charitable trust which has been in operation for 20 years, offers children with special needs and normal children the opportunity to learn and to co-operate with each other from an early age. It is an excellent example of integration which, sadly, has not been replicated elsewhere.
Stockport has a very vocal local press. Papers such as the Stockport Express Advertiser, the Stockport Times, the Stockport Messenger, the Heaton Guardian, Down Your Way and the District Advertiser (Stockport) tackle issues of local interest with enthusiasm. Stockport also has an excellent football team, Stockport County, which was promoted last season, and is fighting its way to further promotion this season.
In recent years, the education system has experienced a period of rapid change with the introduction of local management of schools, the national curriculum, and assessment and appraisal. The national curriculum itself has changed several times. I have a daughter at a local state school, and I recently attended a parents evening to be given information about the GCSE courses that would help her to choose her options. I was informed by the school that the GCSE was to be altered to place less

567
emphasis on course assessment and more on exams. The staff, however, could give me no information about what that actually meant for the individual courses, as they themselves had no information. Parents attending that meeting felt very confused and anxious. Now parents face the possibility of chaos.
Are the schools of Stockport to remain with the local education authority? Will some or all of them opt out? Who knows'? If schools apply for opt-out status, which schools will be given that status? What are the criteria? No one knows. We know the situation this week, but what of next week, next month, next year? This makes nonsense of stability. Will the opt-outs lead to a centralised bureaucracy? The Department of Education must know something, because it is apparently planning to move to a new building called Sanctuary house.
In 1986, Stockport underwent a reorganisation—with all-party support—of its secondary schools for 11 to 18-year-olds, and that has just been completed. It followed the Government's advice to take out spare places. Two schools were closed and three sixth-form colleges were created, one for each area of the town, to reflect local needs and diversity. As Stockport has taken out spare places, parental choice is of necessity limited by available accommodation. If all the schools opt out, set their own criteria for selection, and extend their catchment areas, where does that leave parents? What do they do? Do they apply to their first-choice school and hope that their children get in, apply to their second choice because their children have a better chance of getting into that, or apply to all the schools and hope for the best? It is a nightmare scenario for parents and children alike.
Will the Government allow opted-out schools to borrow extra capital to build? Or will the schools be into "cramming"? Shall we have huge schools with more than 2,000 pupils sending children home for private study because there is no room for them to be taught? Will some schools have shiny new buildings and new mobiles in the grounds, while others struggle to mend their roofs and provide books? That is an obscenity.
Stockport has taken a key role in strategic planning for its post-16 education. Since the three sixth-form colleges were created, the staying-on rate has risen to 75 per cent. What will happen now? If one of the secondary schools opts out and returns to an 11-to-18 intake, will that lead to the closure of one of the sixth-form colleges with consequent loss to the local community? Community groups will be dispossessed, and there will be nowhere for adult education classes to take place.
Who will make the decision? Will it be some distant regional funding council with no local knowledge? What will happen to non-vocational adult education'? How will that be funded? Will it be funded at all? Evening and day classes provide the community with an opportunity to take part in an enormous range of interesting and satisfying opportunities. It is part of a long-standing tradition. The loss of non-vocational adult education will be deeply felt.
These are genuine concerns of my constituents. They want stability and an end to the endless stress of change. I urge the Government to listen to those concerns.
8.29 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: I have the honour to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment and to say how delighted all Members are about it. I wish also to congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) on her interesting speech and to say how much the House enjoyed her humorous approach to an important and serious topic, which helped greatly.
As the hon. Member for Stockport said, the Gracious Speech places importance on education. I shall spend a few moments on that topic and, if there is time, refer to another matter which causes great concern to my constituents.
A number of speakers in this most interesting debate have questioned the comprehensive school system. Some have said that the system has failed totally. I do not accept that statement. The comprehensive ideal was one that those who conceived it could be proud of. It certainly inspired me for many years to work as hard as anybody could in the teaching profession. However, the comprehensive ideal has failed many children because it has proved to be impractical in many schools. That is its tragedy. That does not mean that it was not right to try. What went wrong was the insistence by Labour Governments that there should be a uniform system of comprehensive education. If they had not insisted on having a uniform system of comprehensive secondary education, I do not believe that the comprehensive school ideal would have failed. The ball has to be placed in the court of those who forced the issue to the extent that Labour Governments did.
People in this country and in many other countries will not accept uniformity. They do not want a monopoly. Monopolies lead to failure; people do not work in the ways that they ought to work, which causes problems. The lives of generations of children have been seriously damaged by local authority reorganisation schemes. The reorganisation of London schools into 97 comprehensives by the London county council and its successor, the Inner London education authority, over a period of about 20 years led to the enormous disorganisation of the education of hundreds of thousands of children. To a great extent, that damaged their subsequent careers.
There is a stronger consumer demand now than there has ever been for diversity and choice in education. Happily, the Gracious Speech confirms that fact. Parents, with the encouragement of successive Governments since 1979, are insisting on a choice of school and a choice of courses within that school for their children. That must be right. If people suggest that schools should tell children what courses to follow, that lets children down seriously and damages this nation. Such a process leads to children being under-educated, which damages our country at a time when we need to be able to compete strongly with countries throughout the world.
I believe that parents want more city technology colleges and more church schools. There is a slow increase in the number of church schools. They are very popular and parents want more of them. There is still a strong demand for single sex schools. I believe that the demand for grant-maintained schools will increase enormously. The Opposition need to realise that grant-maintained schools represent a social, political and educational revolution. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have not come to terms with that fact. Five out of the five

569
secondary schools in my constituency applied for grant-maintained status. Four of the five achieved it immediately; the fifth will achieve it fairly soon. These schools are situated both in well-appointed and in very poor areas.
That revolution is being led by the parents. It is led not by Whitehall but by the consumer. In an area in my constituency which the Labour party has always thought of as its own, there was a mock election during the general election campaign. The Conservative candidate was elected with a majority of more than 200 over his opponents. That was not accidental. There has been a revolution. The Labour party needs to come to terms with that fact, if it is to begin to understand what is happening in education. I believe that there will be more grant-maintained schools. There is bound to be an avalanche of applications for grant-maintained schools.
The headmaster of Northolt high school told me that the local authority's cleaning budget took away £70,000 from his school and that he found a private contractor who could carry out the job for £40,000. The £30,000 that he has saved will be spent on more teaching and more books, pencils and rubbers.
Mr. David Hanson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Greenway: No. My time is limited so, with respect, I cannot give way.
Such sums matter very much. Children will benefit greatly as a result. They can see that; so can their parents. The revolt against some comprehensive schools and the lack of choice in some areas could lead, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said, to a return of selection at 11—probably not on an academic basis but on the same basis as in Germany. As a member of the Select Committee on Education, I went to look at the way in which secondary education is organised in Germany. There, children are guided into the local gymnasium or realschule. The children go perfectly happily into vocational or academic schools. All those schools have ample resources. The teachers are well paid and the children achieve their potential within those schools.
There is a chance that we shall return to selection simply because of the pressure of monopoly throughout the country as a result of the policies of Labour authorities. Parents are revolting against it. The Labour party needs to recognise that it inspired the nation to take this action, in much the same way as happened in eastern Europe where the imposition of uniformity led to rebellion and dramatically changed the system. The Labour party ought to consider that intellectual argument. It is central to what is happening here. The Labour party has contributed to what has happened in a way that it has not fully appreciated.
Parents want their children to be stretched educationally. The country needs our children to be stretched educationally if we are to compete, even with countries such as Korea. By putting it that way, I do not intend to insult Korea. The number of academic courses and genuinely academic schools must be increased. More children must be given the opportunity to follow genuinely academic courses. That does not rule out vocational education in schools. As I know from my long experience, that is an important part of education.
570
As the Gracious Speech points out, teacher education and teacher training must certainly be improved. If we are to achieve that aim, those institutions must certainly be in competent hands. Lecturers must be drawn from those who have recent experience of teaching in schools. They must not have been away from it for a long period, so that they lose contact with what is needed. Teachers will need to he prepared more thoroughly than they have been so far, both academically and in the craft of the classroom, which is the basis of good teaching and sound learning.
8.39 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: My first pleasant duty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is to congratulate you on your appointment and to wish you many peaceful years guiding the debates in the House. In common with other hon. Members, I have listened to many fine maiden speeches which augur well for the House in the years to come in depth both of knowledge and of compassion for the social problems that afflict these islands today.
The environment is mentioned twice in the Gracious Speech. It says that the
"Government will work both at home and abroad to protect the environment. They will ensure that the environment remains a key issue in all policy-making".
Those undertakings contrast strongly with a lack of any commitment in the Government's programme that will address the pressing and vital environmental problems that we face, not just on earth as a whole but in our country today. In 1990 the Government announced their conversion to green issues. I should have hoped that they would have had the time and the opportunity to present to the House a strong programme for environmental protection legislation and to show that they intend to lead other nations towards environmental recovery for this generation and those to come. There do not appear to be any proposals for green legislation in the Government's programme.
It is equally disappointing that when the Prime Minister addressed the House on 6 May he did not give any commitment in respect of the great environmental issues, with the exception of a brief reference to the Rio de Janeiro conference, promising the Government's commitment to a target of returning carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the turn of the century. That is an inadequate response to the urgency of the problem. In fact, that rather poor commitment was qualified further by his statement that it would be carried out only
"provided that others will do the same."—[Official Report, 6 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 73.]
Surely we should be setting an example to the world in respect of all aspects of environmental protection. If need be, we must go it alone, for the practical reason that the process of tackling these major problems must start somewhere, must be started by somebody and must start within one of the western industrialised nations.
On ozone layer depletion, the Government seem immune to the urgency indicated by their own research group. In July 1991, the stratospheric ozone review group produced a report drawing attention to the strong evidence that destruction of the ozone layer in the northern hemisphere is greater than anticipated. It stated that above Britain and Europe there had been an 8 per cent. loss of the ozone layer in the past 10 years. That report was followed in October 1991 by a report from a group of 80 international scientists working under the auspices of the

571
United Nations environment programme and the World Meteorological Office. It produced extremely disturbing findings and the Government seem to have paid little attention to them. We are talking not about ozone depletion in some far off place such as Antarctica, but about severe and dangerous ozone depletion over northern Europe and the very islands in which we live. Surely the Government are aware from their own research groups and scientific bodies that UVB radiation will have considerable consequences for the health and welfare of the people of these islands, Europe and the entire earth. They should be striving with the maximum urgency for control of ozone-depleting gases and their withdrawal from use, not by the year 2000 but at the earliest possible opportunity. The Government should have the courage to proceed with protecting the earth, whatever the economic disadvantage. They should provide leadership and, if necessary, by moral force should show the way forward to other nations.
The Government fall far short on matters other than simply ozone layer depletion. We have heard many sympathetic comments about the destruction of the rain forests. However, it was reported not long ago that several British firms are importing rain forest timbers in contravention of the 1989 Philippines Government ban. No action has been taken. At the earth summit in June it is anticipated that the Government will be seeking international consensus on a set of principles governing the conservation of forests. Surely the Government would have a much stronger arm if they sorted out their departmental disagreements. That would provide them with the authority to go before a world convention to negotiate a legally binding forestry conservation agreement.
We must also look at the Government's record on air quality control in the United Kingdom. It has already been noted that there is poor quality air in many parts of these islands. However, the Government boast of having created six new monitoring stations, making a total of 13 sites engaged in ensuring the Government's compliance with EC directive No. 2. That should be compared with Germany where there are 200 sites monitoring air quality control. Surely that is equally important to our citizens.
There is an urgent need, which the Government have neglected, to deal with environmental problems in our own households. They should support a Bill to ban phosphates, increase the biodegradability of detergents and introduce better environmental protection labelling for the consumer. Household detergent pollution is an urgent matter crying out for Government attention.
When we look at the environmental control measures promised in the Government's election manifesto, we see that they have already reneged on the commitment to set up an environmental protection agency by postponing it until not later than 1994. When I questioned the Northern Ireland Office regarding the situation in Northern Ireland, I was told that the commitment would not be implemented until well after that date. So we are probably talking about the turn of the century. That flies in the face of a 1991 all-party report on the environment, which recommended that the environmental protection agencies should be set up immediately.
572
Coming from South Down, I would not do justice to the environmental problem if I did not refer to the pollution of the Irish sea and the daily emissions from Sellafield of radioactive material. That is happening as we debate tonight and has been happening for the past 40 years. The radioactive content has been reduced from what it was several years ago, when there were some horrendous emissions of highly radioactive plutonium. Modern technology is available to clean up the discharge completely and it is one of the first issues that must be tackled.
Added to that environmental pollution, we are now creating another danger. I understand that as from June this year plutonium will be exported to Japan in a specially constructed cargo ship. Ironically, the adaptations to that ship were carried out at Harland and Wolff. That ship must contain a military complement and will be escorted by a military vessel. Apart from the expense involved, I have no doubt that that trade will be dangerous for the inhabitants of these islands. I am extremely concerned that, once again, nuclear waste reprocessing is being expanded by the introduction of thermal oxide reprocessing plant this year. The Government could at least have had the decency to await the environmental impact study that was promised.
I urge the Prime Minister and his team who will attend the Rio de Janeiro conference in June to have the courage to go forward with a greatly accelerated programme, redressing all aspects of the destruction of the environment. If they do so, they will receive the massive support not only of this country but eventually of the rest of the nations of the world. It is a question of determination, foresight and leadership. I hope that the Government can rise to the challenge.
8.49 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I wish briefly but warmly to welcome you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to your elevated office and to wish you well in the future.
Many hon. Members have referred to housing, and I want to do so briefly. The Opposition's amendment refers to omissions from the Gracious Speech. Many of those features are omissions because they are already happening —in other words, much work and money is being invested in solving the problems of homelessness and rooflessness. That is already bearing fruit in London. If the Labour party were to encourage some Labour authorities to return to use some of the empty properties within their gift, many of the problems of homelessness in London and other parts of the country could be solved. They and we could also bring into use unused premises above shops and so on.
The Gracious Speech deals with leasehold reform and rents to mortgages. I hope that the commonhold concept will soon be introduced in legislation. I hope that commonhold reform will embrace consideration of the problems that arise when a small house is divided into flats. In my constituency, it is often leaseholders of two, three or four unit blocks whose rights are abused by freeholders. I hope that my hon. Friends in the Department will bear in mind that leaseholders need the protection of commonhold as much as the occupants of larger units.
I hope that we will not forget leasehold reform of the public sector. All too often, people who bought flats from local authorities have no say in service charges, in when or

573
what repairs are done or in capital improvements. I believe that they should have a greater say in such decisions. I hope that will be part of the Government's leasehold reform.
I welcome the proposals on rents to mortgages, but I hope that they will not stop simply at council tenants. Public sector tenants include housing association tenants, many of whom have been allocated to housing association properties by local authorities. In that process, they often lose the right to buy. The transferable discount scheme is offered for non-charitable trusts, but in London that is a joke because most people cannot afford the property values at which the discount applies. I hope that the rent-to-mortgages concept, which is good, will apply equally to tenants in housing associations.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) about the global environment, but I wish to talk briefly, too, about the domestic environment. The biggest cause of pollution in London, the motor car, is clogging our roads. We desperately need a package of measures to encourage people to use public transport. However, they will use public transport only if it is adequate. We had the great cross-party debate in London, where we threw out the consultants' proposals for major road building schemes and opted unanimously for better and more public transport. I welcome the bold statement in the Gracious Speech that there will be emphasis on providing more rail facilities to solve our problems. I gently suggest that such a proposal could be implemented quickly by bringing forward the improvements to the Northern line, by ensuring that the Hackney to Chelsea rail link travels south through Wandsworth and—this is a very domestic point—by ensuring pedestrian access to railway bridges across the Thames so that people can use the river buses, which stop only on the other side of the Thames at Chelsea as opposed to Battersea. I hope that my proposals for improving public transport will be listened to.
The other improvement in domestic pollution that I should like to see is to do with the air—by which I mean not the air that we breathe but the air through which we hear. All too often we hear far too much. Noise pollution in the inner city is one of the curses of this age. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to give local authorities and the police real powers to confiscate equipment and to stop noise, whether from a private residence or from a public performance. Noise is a menace to people throughout the night, and in the summer, when people wish to have their windows open, it occurs throughout the day and at weekends as well. We need urgent action on those measures.
Finally, I want to follow the hon. Member for South Down in speaking about global environment problems. There has been much discussion about the preparations for Rio related to the need for population control to preserve and conserve the assets of our planet. That is right, but we in the west must understand that often the population increases because people in the developing world do not have confidence in the survival of their children. When we can increase their confidence, family sizes will decrease and we shall begin to preserve the planet as a whole. Today, 6,000 children will die of pneumonia; 7,000 children will die of diarrhoea and dehydration diseases; and 8,000 children will die of measles, tetanus, whooping cough and diphtheria. All those deaths—a total of 21,000 today, 7·6 million this year and 38·3 million over
574
a five-year Parliament—are avoidable for a comparatively small sum of money. If the western world, with this country playing its part, were to spend money on enabling those children to survive, the size of families would decrease.
The cost of solving the pneumonia problem is 50p per child for antibiotics; the cost of solving the diarrhoea problem is 5p for oral rehydration tablets; and the cost of solving the measles problem is sixpence ha'penny for immunisation. For £1,170 a day, 21,000 lives could be saved today; for £427,000 a year, 7·6 million could be saved; and £21·3 million could save 38·3 million lives in a five-year period. Surely that is a price worth paying when we are talking about children and families that need our support. It is a question of chicken and egg. In this case, if the young chickens are able to survive, parents will not produce so many eggs to hatch and so we will start to solve some of the global environmental population problems that face the world at Rio and beyond.
8.58 pm
Mr. Stephen Byers: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in the debate on the Queen's Speech, and may I take this opportunity to extend to you my personal congratulations on your selection as Deputy Speaker.
It is appropriate for me to pay a tribute to Mr. Ted Garrett, my immediate predecessor, who retired at the general election. Ted Garrett was popular with hon. Members of all parties. He did not seek the political limelight but was happy and content to discharge his responsibilities to the constituents of Wallsend in a simple, unassuming manner. However, his constituents knew full well that if they had a grievance—no matter against whom —Ted Garrett would pursue it with tenacity until it was resolved. I only hope that in my time in the House I shall be able to discharge my responsibilities to the constituents of Wallsend in the way that he did since becoming a Member of Parliament in 1964.
The constituency of Wallsend runs from the banks of the great River Tyne northwards to the old coal mining pit villages of the south-east Northumberland coalfield. Alas, the pits are no more, but the river is still active. Swan Hunter Shipbuilders has an international reputation for producing high-quality ships on time and at a competitive price. Its success is largely due to the positive partnership created over the years between the management and the work force.
Just along the Tyne, the other major employer is Press Fabrication, an offshore yard producing modules for the offshore industry. Last year it was named as the northern business of the year—a well-deserved accolade—but such success stories are only small glimmers of light in a dark and bleak environment.
In the 1980s we lost jobs and, for those in work, incomes decreased in real terms. Because of changes to the benefit system, those receiving benefits were pushed deeper into grinding poverty. The feeling of despair and despondency in my constituency is not unique—it is shared by most constituencies in the north-east. That is why, on 9 April, those constituents—those electors— registered a massive vote of no confidence in the Government's policies. Instead, they endorsed Labour's

575
programme, which was based on care and compassion for all sections of the population, but that programme has now been denied to them.
We are debating a Queen's Speech that has more to do with envy, self-interest and greed than any concept of citizenship or community. On 9 April, more than 50 per cent. of the people who voted in the north-east voted Labour. Many of those people now believe—rightly so —that the Government have no mandate to govern the north-east. We are all aware of the current constitutional debate in Scotland. I believe that as a result of the election on 9 April a similar debate must now take place in the north-east.
I want to make one or two remarks about education. The Chinese have a proverb which says that the schools of a country are its future in miniature. I believe that to be true—we must invest in our future. But that has not happened in the past decade. An ever smaller share of our national wealth has been committed to education spending —a decline of 16 per cent. since 1979. That lack of investment has been combined with constant change in our education system. That system has been subjected to an almost permanent revolution in the classroom. As a result of that combination, our education service is now at breaking point.
The Queen's Speech refers grandly to choice, diversity and standards in education. However, what does that mean in practice if we strip away the rhetoric? The National Foundation for Educational Research has shown that reading standards in primary schools have declined dramatically over the past four or five years. We have heard today that if schools opt out of local authority control, that would raise standards. It is interesting to note that Her Majesty's inspectorate spent 300 days in opted-out schools, but no reports have been published. I have no doubt that reports would have been published if standards had risen.
The Queen's Speech refers to diversity. We know that "diversity" is a code word for selection and a return to the 11-plus—the examination that dares not speak its name. We have already heard that selection denies parental choice. That is nothing new. We have had the 11-plus and we have had selection. However, local authorities of all political controls moved against selection for good reasons. We all recognised and believed that childhood division would create a disadvantage for the majority. We cannot allow the Government to turn the clock back to the bad old days when 75 per cent. of our children were deemed failures at the age of 11.
Margaret Bondfield made her maiden speech as Member for Wallsend in 1926. She said:
"The Government appear to be trying to apply 19th century methods to a 20th century population, and it will not work".—[Official Report, 30 July 1926; Vol. 198, c. 2516.]
I do not believe that measures announced in the Queen's Speech will work. It fails to address the needs and realities of the 1990s. All that the Government can offer my constituents is a future made up of all their yesterdays. Our country and our people deserve better.
9.7 pm
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I add my congratulations to those which have been showered on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from both sides of the House.
576
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on his maiden speech. I look forward to debating with him across the Chamber for many years to come.
When Madam Speaker called the first hon. Member to make his maiden speech during this debate on the Queen's Speech, that hon. Member said that he had been elected on his fifth attempt, something that he had in common with Madam Speaker. I have waited a little longer, although I also fought five general election campaigns before making this maiden speech.
I first stood as a Member of Parliament against the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Michael Foot, in the constituency then known as Ebbw Vale. I am sad that my arrival in this place coincides with his decision to depart it. Throughout the time that I have known him, he has been a man of the greatest courtesy, irrespective of our political differences.
I also have this claim to fame: at the last general election I managed to lose the Brecon and Radnor constituency by the smallest margin in the country, and I lost to Michael Foot by the largest margin. That is something to take with me. The experience of winning a seat, even by a vote as marginal as 130, is much better than losing by just 56 votes.
Politics are taken very seriously in my constituency. At the last general election the turnout in Brecon and Radnor, at 84 per cent., was the highest in the country. This time around the turnout was 86 per cent., but it is interesting to note that that was only the third highest. That shows me that there are people in my constituency who still believe that this is the cockpit of the nation, that this is where important decisions are taken, and that it is relevant and important that they should participate in elections.
My first words on being elected were of tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Richard Livsey, for all his hard work as constituency Member for Brecon and Radnor, and I am happy to repeat that tribute in this Chamber. As one would imagine from the political history of the seat, we have been keen political opponents for a considerable time, but that has never stopped us from enjoying a close friendship. I wish him well, although I hope that he decides to pursue an alternative career.
It would be remiss of me not to mention some of the other Members for Brecon and Radnor, starting with the example of constituency service set by the late Labour Member, Lord Watkins, the former Tudor Watkins, who held for Labour what is now regarded as one of the closest three-party marginals in the country for 25 years. He held the seat on the basis of the example of constituency service that he set, followed by his successor Caerwyn Roderick and then by the late Tom Hooson, whose untimely death led to the famous 1985 by-election.
It is my understanding that there has never been a one-term Member of Parliament for Brecon and Radnor and, as a supporter of tradition, I am hoping that that is a tradition that my electors will stick with. Having said that, I am aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House and among the Liberal party have spent some considerable time campaigning in Brecon and Radnor. Most of them have come back from the constituency saying that it is one of the most beautiful, if not the most beautiful, in Britain. I know that every Member of Parliament is bound to say in this Chamber that their constituency is the most beautiful, but I can say with some force that I have support from both sides of the Chamber for that proposition.

577
However, my constituency has its difficulties. It has the largest proportion of the land-mass of Wales and so 1 suppose that I may say that I speak for more of Wales than anyone else in the Chamber. It covers more than three quarters of a million acres of Wales, stretching from the upper Swansea valley to Shropshire, and from the suburbs of Abergavenny to the hinterland of Aberystwyth. It would not fit within the curtilage of the M25 motorway, which is a sign of how vast the constituency is.
It is well known that agriculture is an important industry in the constituency, and I welcome the observations in the Queen's Speech about agricultural marketing and reform of the common agricultural policy. I hope to return to those issues in this Chamber on other occasions.
During my maiden speech I must speak more fully on housing, on the basis that a large rural area such as my constituency often has difficulty persuading people that there is a rural housing problem. I recognise that there is such a problem. Until the election was called I enjoyed the honour of being the deputy chairman of Housing for Wales, Tai Cymru, the Welsh equivalent of the Housing Corporation. I am pleased that while I was involved in the board of that corporation we were able to convince the housing establishment—the housing professionals—that there really was a housing problem. We were able to commit some 27 per cent. of all Housing Corporation expenditure in Wales to trying to resolve that problem. I am pleased to see that now the Housing Corporation in England is starting to catch up.
I am disappointed at some observations in the amendment concerning the role of local government and criticising the Government's policy on housing as though housing were to be delivered only by local government. I am rather sorry that Opposition Members pay so little attention to the role of housing associations, their major achievements in recent years and the great support that they have had from the Government. Our Housing Corporation in Wales operates in positive partnership with local authorities. Local authorities have a role, yes —not perhaps as the provider, but as the enabler. Since Housing for Wales has been established it has been a key, leading body in developing the close relationship between local authorities and the Housing Corporation that is so important.
There has been a massive expansion in resources for the housing association movement and it is important that the money is targeted better than has been the case in the past. That is why we in Wales have decided that money must be directed, yes, to where local authorities say it is needed, but on the basis of their surveys of local opinion. Often local authorities adopt the stance that they always know best. It is important that they should be involved in liaising with local groups and local communities to assess exactly what the housing needs are, so that we are sure that money spent on housing goes where it should go.
I am pleased to say that the amount of finance made available to housing associations, particularly in Wales, has increased considerably. I was pleased to see the Conservative party's commitment in its manifesto to ensuring that the figures in the public expenditure line will be commitments for the years ahead. I see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on the Front Bench and I say to him that I did not see any such commitment in the Welsh manifesto. I hope that there is nothing significant in that.
578
It is also important to recognise the role that private funding has played in the mixed financial regime with housing associations. Thirty per cent. or more of the expenditure available must come from the private sector. If it is to come, it must come on the basis of private funding being available. I congratulate the Government on commissioning a report from Hambro which, I understand, may have been in the Government's hands since January or February. So far the report has not been published. It is important that it should be published because it is necessary to take every available step to ensure that private funding exists.
I am a Welshman who has lived and worked in Wales all my life. I represent a Welsh constituency, but I am here as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. We have heard many remarks from Opposition Members about mandates. As a Member of this Parliament, I consider Wales to be an integral part of the United Kingdom, and I shall work during all the time that I am here to ensure that it remains so.
9.18 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: May I offer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hearty congratulations on your appointment? You may recall that we first met 20 years ago when I was newly elected as a member of the Labour group on Islington borough council and you were leader of a rump of Conservative opposition members which had been reduced to five aldermen. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) did not intend to call you Mr. Deputy Mayor, but if he had said Mr. Former Alderman, he would have been correct. We are delighted to see you in your place.
It is my happy task to congratulate the 13 hon. Members who have made maiden speeches today as well as to congratulate the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has returned to the House for a third time. He is not so much a retread as an inner tube, but his speech was entertaining none the less.
There were eight maiden speeches by Labour hon. Members, including those from my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Ms. Campbell), for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) and for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) who took seats from Conservative Members at the general election. The fact that those five won those seats underlines the great difference between this Parliament and the previous one. Thanks to the effectiveness of our election campaign, the Government's majority has been reduced from more than 100 to just 21.
We have heard fine speeches from all my hon. Friends. I greatly enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood, who spoke of the principle of alphabetical order and the way in which he suffered greatly as a result. His name begins with a W, and although mine begins with an S, I share his sense of discrimination. He also made a very important point, which the Secretary of State may wish to address, about the crisis in the recruitment of parents and other members of the public to serve as school governors. That crisis is caused by the fact that the nature of the job has changed, from one of giving support and assistance to the education of children within the school to the often unpalatable task

579
of having to make cuts in budgets and deciding which teachers should be sacked or which budgets for books should be cut.
I greatly enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, which is near to the area where I was born. He may not know—it is a little known fact—that for three weeks in 1965 my sister and I were employed full time by the Labour party to canvass the whole of the constituency as a prelude to a famous by-election win which took place some months later. I was paid the princely sum of £7 per week, and on the basis of that £21—
Mr. Pawsey: Too much.
Mr. Straw: That was before the idea of the minimum wage had even passed the lips of Labour spokespersons.
On the basis of the money I earned, I bought myself a suit. I still have that suit, and I can still get into it. [Interruption.] The good men and women of Marks and Spencer would be offended by the suggestion that the suit I am wearing today is 28 years old.
We heard fine speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Yardley and for Stockport, and I shall return to them. There were also fine contributions from the hon. Members for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), and for Bath (Mr. Foster), as well as from the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker).
I also warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) on his appointment as the new Secretary of State in the freshly renamed Department for Education. The right hon. Gentleman comes to his post with many advantages. He knows more than a little about education, but perhaps his greatest advantage is that he is not the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), his predecessor who is now Home Secretary. Though that right hon. and learned Gentleman often entertained the House with his unusual combination of bravado and invective, the world of parents, governors, teachers and pupils, over whom he temporarily presided, was far from entertained.
The previous Secretary of State left the education service in turmoil, in a worse state even than he had found it 16 months before. He turned teacher training upside down, he pre-emptorily decided that history should end in 1963 and he planned the wholesale dismemberment of Her Majesty's inspectorate and the local inspectorate of schools, and the privatisation of what remained. Worse, he gave the impression of disinterest in the views and opinions of teachers and parents and rarely visited any state schools.
The former Secretary of State, now the Home Secretary, is, I believe, a practising agnostic. He has been seen inside a church less often than he was seen inside a school. The new Secretary of State, on the other hand, is a devout member of the Roman Catholic church and in a now celebrated article in The Spectator—which, fortunately for him, hit the stands after, rather than before, the election—he enlisted the assistance of the Almighty to explain away Conservative Administrations' lamentable
580
record on law and order, namely, the doubling of crime in less than a decade. The Secretary of State said that it was all a consequence of declining church attendance and a "dwindling belief in redemption and damnation which has led to a loss of fear of the eternal consequences of goodness and badness."
We shall, no doubt, be hearing more about the Almighty in relation to education policy. Even now, I understand that hard-pressed teachers of disaffected adolescents in inner city schools are clamouring for hell to be officially made part of the national curriculum, most likely in exchange for craft, design and technology, and personal and social education.
In his speech on Wednesday on the Loyal Address, the Prime Minister said:
"Our target is to raise standards, widen choice and open up opportunity for hundreds of thousands of children".— [Official Report, 6 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 71.]
Opportunity, choice, standards—they are easy words to say and we can, and do, all drink to them. Their practice, however, is a great deal more difficult, and it is the likely practice of the Government's education policies and their probable consequence that I shall address tonight.
There are many policies on which there has been broad agreement in the Chamber, as with the introduction of the national curriculum and the local management of schools, and on many others there could easily be agreement, such as the rapid expansion of nursery education, for which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) called in an effective speech, or the serious integration of academic and vocational qualifications.
In the time available to me today, however, I shall deal with one policy on which there is far less agreement—opting out and the extension of the grant-maintained sector. Of all Conservative education policies, none has been sold more heavily on that litany of opportunity, choice and standards than the policy of opting out. Paradoxically, of all Conservative education policies, none contains within it more potential for reducing opportunity and parental choice than opting out, while doing nothing to raise educational standards.
Why the present Administration should have turned opting out into an article of Conservative faith is beyond me. It was, it may be recalled, dreamed up in the early months of 1987 by the Downing street policy unit as no more than a crude wheeze to destabilise a few allegedly unpopular inner city Labour local education authorities. It was a policy forced on a wholly sceptical Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who publicly clashed with the then Prime Minister on its likely impact. She said that by 1991 more than half of all schools would have opted out, but the right hon. Member for Mole Valley wisely predicted that only a few schools would opt out of the local authority system.
Despite the cynical enticement of schools named for closure then being offered opt-out as a salvation—despite the naked bribery of opt-out schools—by the last election, only 200 schools, less than 1 per cent., had opted out of the local authority system, and most of those were to be found in a handful not of Labour authorities but of low-spending Conservative authorities.
Opting out has now moved up from wheeze to dogma, with Tory Members and the Conservative press openly encouraging an avalanche of opting out, with the end of local democratic involvement in the school system as we know it. The Secretary of State said yesterday that he

581
anticipated that the floodgates for opting out were now open, but The Daily Telegraph wrote in an editorial last Wednesday:
"A serious policy vacuum is becoming apparent at the heart of the Government's policies for secondary education."
It went on:
"Unless it is addressed soon, the opting-out process could become anarchic and thereby discredited."
That policy vacuum exists because of a central problem which the Secretary of State's predecessor and the Prime Minister have repeatedly ducked. The question is what kind of system will schools be opting into, not that from which they will be opting out. What lies beyond the floodgates of which the Secretary of State spoke yesterday is turbulence, uncertainty and territory that is unknown, not calm, charted waters. In that territory schools and their pupils could easily become the casualties. The wider the floodgates and the more schools opt out, the less will the past be any guide to the future.
I shall deal with five linked issues: cash, selection, parental choice, administration and standards. Roman Catholic bishops held a conference 10 days ago during which they expressed their deep unease about the prospects for opting out. The bishops said:
"We are deeply opposed to the considerable imbalances in funding brought about by the administration of the grant maintained school system, and we shall press for the removal of preferential funding for such schools."
When opting out was first put before the House five years ago, solemn undertakings were given by Ministers and by the then Prime Minister that local education authority schools and opt-out schools would be treated in a financially neutral way. As opting out began to flop, bribes were offered by Ministers and were taken.
Most schools which have opted out so far have done so simply for the money. The average sized secondary school has been at least £155,000 better off in its first year as a result of opting out, with capital funding running at twice the rate for local authority schools. Some of the extra cash has been taken directly from other LEA schools, which has impoverished them, but much has come from extra Exchequer expenditure. Immoral such bribes may have been, but with opting out on such a scale their costs were easily absorbable.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not surprising that there were additional capital grants for some schools in the county of Lancashire, schools which had been grossly starved of funds and which therefore had to make up a great deal of leeway? Those schools, two of which are in my constituency, had been starved over the years by Lancashire county council. Having had the wisdom to opt out, they are now receiving the money that previously had been devoted to administration and democracy in county hall. They are now doing exceptionally well. Many such schools would not have received a bean from the county.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady is right to say that three or four schools out of hundreds that have opted out in Lancashire were starved of cash for their capital building needs. Where she is wrong—she knows this—is in suggesting that Lancashire county council is responsible. She came with me on deputation after deputation to Ministers, and she knows that it was the Conservative Government who starved the schools of funds, not the failure of Lancashire county council.
582
The question raised by the Catholic bishops and the question now being raised by governors, parents and local authorities throughout the land is whether the bribes can continue. I put the question to the Secretary of State, and I ask him to answer it. If, as the Government predict, 2,000 more schools opt out, that will cost the Exchequer—I leave aside the moneys that will be taken from local authorities and local authority schools—an extra £300 million. If another 4,000 schools opt out, that will cost the Exchequer another £600 million. Does that money exist? Are schools which now opt out to be offered the same level of bribes —"financial incentives", to use the Prime Minister's words —that schools have been offered in the past? I offer the Secretary of State the opportunity to explain. Come on —answer the question! This is a crucial issue for every school in the land. If the Secretary of State is unwilling to answer now, he had better answer in the course of his speech, because parents and governors have a right to know whether the same sort of bribes that have hitherto been offered will continue in the future.
A second issue, even more important than whether the level of financial incentives will continue, is selection. An increase in opting out will inexorably lead to greater selection at 11, since the schools and not the local education authorities will make the selection. Some grant-maintained schools have made it explicit that they want to turn from being comprehensives to being grammar schools. In any area we may rapidly see the creation of a rigid hierarchy of schools, with favoured, well-funded opt-outs at the top—grammar schools in all but name—and a second tier of council schools, secondary moderns or no hope schools, to use the words of The Daily Telegraph, at the bottom.
Time and again, during the election campaign and before, I pressed the former Secretary of State to say whether this two-tier system—this recreation of the secondary modern schools—was what the Conservative party wanted. Time and again he dodged the issue, but whether and how children are given their life chances at 11 cannot be a matter for agnosticism. Nor, as The Daily Telegraph witheringly commented in the same editorial, can the Government
"maintain its pretence of neutrality over the future of comprehensives by implying that it is simply allowing a hundred flowers to bloom".
Selection was never mentioned in the Tories' manifesto, yet selection at 11 there will be if opting out becomes the norm—and it will be far less fair and far more random selection than ever it was under the 11-plus. That, too, was a point made by the Catholic bishops, who said that
"Grant-maintained status would bring a random return to selection, which leads to the neglect of the less able or disadvantaged children."
The Secretary of State should also recognise a point in the powerful speech by his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who said that if the Government continue to have no clear policy on whether they favour comprehensive schools or some sort of explicit selection, the consequence will be random selection and a primitive and disorganised policy from which the Conservatives will be the losers.
As the local authority system breaks up and as competition between schools intensifies, so, too, will parental choice decrease. As my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley pointed out, parents will no longer choose schools—schools will choose parents. In the four years since the Education Reform Act 1988, the proportion of

583
parents successfully getting their first choice of school has fallen, and in areas with large numbers of schools which have already opted out, the anarchy predicted by The Daily Telegraph has already occurred. In the Tory borough of Bromley in London, where eight schools have opted out, 225 pupils and their parents have thus far had no choice of school because it has been impossible to offer them a choice under that authority due to the multiple applications to the opted-out schools now outside the authority's control. As The Times commented in an editorial,
"to pretend that the selective opt-out structure emerging as government policy has anything to do with parental choice is a deception".
Then there is the issue of the future administration of secondary schools. Opting out will result in the nationalisation of the school system—in its central takeover by Whitehall. But schools are not islands; their provision must be planned and financed and if not by local authorities, then by whom? Are we to expect under the terms of the much promised White Paper that Whitehall officials will administer the whole school system, or are we to expect appointed boards packed with Conservative place men and women, as happened with health authorities and NHS trusts? The Secretary of State had better tell us in his wind-up speech.
Lastly, the largest question of all: what is the purpose of the journey into the unknown that mass opting out will entail? For Labour, the only test of any education policy is whether it will increase choice and opportunity and raise the standards of education for every child. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend pointed out, there is no evidence that the opting out that has occurred so far has led to higher standards.
Her Majesty's inspectors have spent 300 days on greater and more intensive inspection of grant-maintained schools in their four years of existence than any local authority schools have ever enjoyed. Yet, despite more than three years' intensive HMI attention, not one report has been published by HMI on grant-maintained schools. If those HMI visits and reports spelled out that opting out was leading to higher standards than would otherwise be the case, one can bet that the Government would have published those reports. They have shrouded those reports in secrecy, because they know the truth—that opting out has led to no discernible improvement in education standards. Nor can it. What it has done is to lead to a divided system, a two-tier system, and selection by the back door.
One point on which we should all agree is that standards of education in Britain for many children are not so high as they are in many comparable countries and not so high as they could and should be. Where the Government's policies are likely to lead to an increase in standards and an increase in choice and opportunities for every child, those policies will have our support. But where those policies seek to create a future out of a discredited past, they will have our relentless opposition.
In the article in The Spectator entitled
"There is a choice—good or evil",
the Secretary of State opened with the touching words:
"I believe in God. I worry about Him. I think that He probably worries about me."
584
The Secretary of State is not the only one, and he had better understand that his actions will be judged not only by the Almighty in the world to come, but by parents, teaches, governors and pupils in this world who want an end to underfunding, an end to pay-as-you-learn, and an end to double standards, and who want instead real investment and the choice and opportunity which come from delivering the highest standards of education to every child.
9.41 pm
The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I rise in what I understand in footballing parlance is called injury time, with 19 minutes to go to reply to the debate.
During the afternoon, Madam Speaker, your ears must have been burning while hon. Member after hon. Member paid you compliments in your absence. They will all be there in Hansard tomorrow for you to read at breakfast.
We have had a remarkable number of maiden speeches of extremely high quality. The debate started off as a bit of a heritage trail around Britain's historic cities, kicked off by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Ms. Campbell), followed by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and completed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth)—a sort of Baedeker tour of the tourist spots of the United Kingdom.
I greatly appreciated the graceful remarks made by the hon. Member for Cambridge about Sir Robert Rhodes James, as I am sure did others. The hon. Members for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham), neither of whom would claim a major part in the tourist guides for their constituencies—[Interruption.]—no, not because of the damage caused to the Baedeker guides but because of the damage that the Baedeker raids did to Coventry during the second world war. Both hon. Members spoke with great feeling about their constituencies and I congratulate them on what they said.
The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) made some exceptionally interesting remarks, including showing a bit of independence, saying that he supported some of the Government's education legislation. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) was extremely generous about his predecessor, Hugo Summerson. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) was equally generous about David Gilroy Bevan and the victor in Stockport over the Liberals was very generous— [Interruption]—over the Conservatives: we lost the seat. That was a deliberate mistake put in to ensure that hon. Members are learning the constituencies. We shall miss Tony Favell very much indeed. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) has come here with a reputation for being a bit of a left-winger, so my north-eastern spies tell me. Such people are to be cherished in these revisionist times.
After the hon. Member for Bath, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, who comes to the House with a reputation for humour, and he sustained it in his excellent maiden speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) spoke fluently without notes—a talent that was explained by his fellow countryman, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), as owing to the fact that he is Scottish.

585
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring was followed by another Scot, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who spoke fluently and warmly about his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) paid tribute not only to Sir Neil Macfarlane but to two remarkable residents of Cheam—the legendary Tony Hancock and Harry Secombe.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), who scored a famous victory—and I will get it right this time —over the Liberals, also spoke without notes, showing that Welsh Members of Parliament can do that as well as Scottish right hon. and hon. Members who come south of the border.
We were fortunate this afternoon to hear maiden speeches of such quality.
I cannot refer in the short amount of injury time available to me to all the other interventions, but they included some frightening words from my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) about the future of Select Committees. I guess that wiser persons than myself listened with some trembling to his remarks. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said clearly that the Opposition were out of touch in their opposition to grant-maintained schools—and so they are. That view was echoed in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).
We heard a couple of notable and thought-provoking interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). I imagine that I will be debating with them a great deal in the coming years.
Before turning to Labour's contribution to the debate, I shall refer briefly to the Liberal Democrats. It might be worth dwelling for a moment or two on the lamentable condition of their party, which, having been rebuffed by the British electorate, is now making advances to the poor old Labour party. Labour needs the amorous advances of the Liberal Democrats like a vegetarian needs a plate of raw meat. I suspect that if there is ever a coming together, it will be the Liberals who are gobbled up.
I have nothing against individual Liberal Members of Parliament. Some of them are rather nice. I am surprised that many of them remain in the Liberal party. For many months, I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), with his cutaway collars and striped shirts, was a member of the Conservative party, and I bought him a number of drinks on that basis.
There is also that nice teenage president of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). I would like the party's deputy leader to pass on to that hon. Gentleman the information that if he chooses to cross the Floor of the House, I am authorised to offer him a job as my assistant Parliamentary Private Secretary. I have nothing against any Liberal Members of Parliament, and certainly not against our newcomer, the hon. Member for Bath.
The general election campaign did, however, provide one service to the public: it revealed for the first time to a wider audience the true face—and a very disagreeable face it is too, being unpleasant, personal and vindictive—of the more extreme Liberal activists in this country. It is a very ugly face indeed. They tormented my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr.
586
Dickens) with personal attacks of a most shameful kind. My hon. Friend is a big enough man to deal with them, but he is still suffering—he is unable to be here this evening.
Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who went to Cheltenham during the campaign came back reporting the insidious drip, drip of innuendo. "Vote for the local man," the Liberals said. Then there were the disgraceful scenes in Bath. I am sure that the new Member for Bath—whom I congratulate on his election victory—dissociates himself completely from those. There was organised chanting, and organised shouting down of our former right hon. Friend Christopher Patten. That was a blot on the whole election campaign.
Madam Speaker: Order. I should like to hear more about the amendment now.
Mr. Patten: You know what it is like with inexperienced Secretaries of State, Madam Speaker. I shall now deal with the amendment, but I hope that my hon. Friends will remember what I have said.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was very cheerful. I appreciated his speech: it was an extremely good speech, with some good jokes. That is perhaps all the more remarkable because at present it cannot be much fun being a Labour party member concerned with Labour education or environmental policy.
Whoever wins the great Labour leadership battle, there may well be a reshuffle of responsibilities. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackburn will play a starring role whatever happens; it is the question of who may succeed as Opposition education spokesman that worries me. I have heard ugly rumours that it may be the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). That would be a serious matter.
Certainly, we shall not know for a long time what Labour's three Rs are. Will the Labour party be attracted by reading, writing and retrenchment, under the austere hand of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith); or by the reading, writing and radicalism of the deeply dangerous hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)? We shall have to wait and see. All I know is that the Labour party has been spared the reading, writing and revolution promised by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
Whatever the direction in which the new leader of the party takes Labour's education policies, it will presumably be a case of a new set of three Rs. It will be "retreat, retreat, retreat" from every radical Labour policy on to Conservative ground. That will happen time after time. As experience has shown us over the past 13 years, what is outrageously conservative one year in education policy is Labour party policy in the next manifesto. That has happened time and again.
The hon. Member for Blackburn talks of the Conservative party's record on education. I am very happy to talk about our record. Our schools are being transformed: the facts speak for themselves. The national curriculum is transforming pupils' expectations and ensuring that all children have the core education that they deeply deserve. That is true equality of opportunity—Conservative equality of opportunity.
Examination results are getting better and better. Record numbers of our young people—this point should not be diminished by Opposition Members—are now staying on after the age of 16. Record numbers of people

587
are now training to become teachers, and local management of schools is liberating schools up and down the country. I do not know of a single school with LMS, let alone grant-maintained status, that wishes to return to the bad old days of local authority domination.
Choice and diversity have now become a reality for increasing numbers of parents and their children, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth predicted all those years ago. Grant-maintained schools are a hit with parents. A revolution is beginning to sweep across the education landscape of the country. I should be happy to arrange a visit to any grant-maintained school in the country for the hon. Member for Blackburn and his Front-Bench team: it is clear that they need to be educated in excellence, which is what Conservative party policy is about.
I expect the revolution in our schools to gather pace in the years to come. I expect our schools, when all the reforms have been fully implemented, to be the envy of the western world. I want parents to be able to enjoy real choice, real diversity and higher expectations for their children. I expect them to play their part by helping their schools in many different ways. I certainly expect to see an ever-increasingly skilled and educated work force.
Above all else, however, as a result of our curriculum reforms and testing, I expect our children to do two things. I guess that the first will be laughed at by the Opposition, but I intend to explain what it is. I expect children to go to school throughout their school career and to stay there to be educated. I am simply not prepared to allow truancy levels to remain at the level at which they are now. What is the point of having good teachers, fine schools and all that public expenditure if children are not at school to enjoy that experience? Secondly, I expect our children to be taught to think for themselves, to read and to write properly, to spell and to do their sums—all the fundamental aims of a good education system.
Further thoughts about the structure of education will be made clear in the White Paper that I am now writing, which will be brought before the House in due course. Undoubtedly, it will be opposed by the Labour party on publication date, but it will be Labour party policy 18 months later—as it always is. Every time that we have introduced constructive proposals to improve education, the Labour party has opposed them and then changed its mind.
Look at the Labour party's record. In 1987, Labour claimed that we wanted to introduce a national curriculum only in order to give us a monopoly of thought in education. A few years later the national curriculum is Labour party policy. Look at tests. The Labour party said that tests would lead to arrogance or failure. Now it wants them. Testing is part of Labour policy. Local management of schools was condemned during the fun-filled 1989 Labour party conference. Hands up any Labour Member who remembers that with pride. I cannot see anyone doing so. Now the Labour party supports it.
Then there is opting-out. Just five weeks ago the Labour party made a pledge to ditch all our education reforms. Grant-maintained schools, local management of schools and city technology colleges would all be thrown out of the window. Now, five weeks later, after the Labour party's fourth general election defeat, revisionism has set
588
in. Its leading education adviser, Professor Tim Brighouse, Professor of Education at Keele university, says that Labour should ditch its traditional commitment to comprehensives, let state schools develop in their own way and fund an increasing number of assisted places. Just five weeks after the election! I rubbed my eyes in disbelief.
I was not sure what the Labour party's official response would be, but one of the Labour party's spokesmen on schools was quoted yesterday in one of our great national newspapers as saying that Professor Brighouse's ideas were very sparky and deserved attention. There are a lot more sparky ideas coming from our side of the Chamber.
Because the Queen's Speech has been prepared by a Conservative Government, we have been spared the tired and reactionary programme that the Labour party would have given us. Had the Labour party been sitting on this side of the Chamber now, it would have been repealing the rates and beginning to renationalise industries such as the water industry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment took so successfully into private ownership when he was Minister of State. The citizens charter would have been torn up on the first day of a Labour Government, with its commitment to public services of a high quality. Worst of all, the most important and fundamental social reforms of the last quarter of this century—our education and health reforms—would have been torn up and ditched. By the end of this Parliament, the British people, not the Conservative party, will have decided that those reforms are truly irreversible.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 323.

Division No. 2]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Caborn, Richard

Adams, Mrs Irene

Callaghan, Jim

Ainger, Nicholas

Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Allen, Graham

Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

Alton, David

Cambell-Savours, D. N.

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Canavan, Dennis

Anderson, Ms Janet

Cann, James

Armstrong, Hilary

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Ashton, Joe

Chisholm, Malcolm

Austin-Walker, John

Clapham, Michael

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Barnes, Harry

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Barron, Kevin

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Battle, John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bayley, Hugh

Coffey, Ms Ann

Beckett, Margaret

Cohen, Harry

Beggs, Roy

Connarty, Michael

Beith, A. J.

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Bell, Stuart

Corbett, Robin

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bennett, Andrew F.

Corston, Ms Jean

Benton, Joe

Cousins, Jim

Bermingham, Gerald

Cox, Tom

Berry, Roger

Cryer, Bob

Betts, Clive

Cummings, John

Blair, Tony

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Blunkett, David

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Boateng, Paul

Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

Boyce, Jimmy

Dafis, Cynog

Boyes, Roland

Dalyell, Tam

Bradley, Keith

Darling, Alistair

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Davidson, Ian

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Burden, Richard

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

Byers, Stephen

Denham, John

589

Dewar, Donald

Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

Dixon, Don

Khabra, Piara

Dobson, Frank

Kilfoyle, Peter

Donohoe, Brian

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Dowd, Jim

Kirkwood, Archy

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Leighton, Ron

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Lewis, Terry

Enright, Derek

Litherland, Robert

Etherington, William

Livingstone, Ken

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Llwyd, Elfyn

Fatchett, Derek

Loyden, Eddie

Faulds, Andrew

Lynne, Ms Liz

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

McAllion, John

Fisher, Mark

McAvoy, Thomas

Flynn, Paul

McCartney, Ian

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

MacDonald, Calum

Foster, Derek (B 'p Auckland)

McFall, John

Foster, Donald (Bath)

McGrady, Eddie

Foulkes, George

McKelvey, William

Fraser, John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Fyfe, Maria

McLeish, Henry

Galbraith, Sam

Maclennan, Robert

Galloway, George

McMaster, Gordon

Gapes, Michael

McNamara, Kevin

Garrett, John

McWilliam, John

Gerrard, Neil

Madden, Max

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Maginnis, Ken

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Mahon, Alice

Godsiff, Roger

Mandelson, Peter

Golding, Mrs Llin

Marek, Dr John

Gordon, Mildred

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Gould, Bryan

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Graham, Thomas

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Martlew, Eric

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Maxton, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Meale, Alan

Grocott, Bruce

Michael, Alun

Gunnell, John

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hain, Peter

Milburn, Alan

Hall, Mike

Miller, Andrew

Hanson, David

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hardy, Peter

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Harman, Ms Harriet

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Harvey, Nick

Morgan, Rhodri

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Morley, Elliot

Henderson, Doug

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Heppell, John

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Hinchliffe, David

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhail)

Mudie, George

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Mullin, Chris

Home Robertson, John

Murphy, Paul

Hood, Jimmy

O'Brien, Michael (N W' kshire)

Hoon, Geoff

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Olner, William

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

O'Neill, Martin

Hoyle, Doug

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Parry, Robert

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Patchett, Terry

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Pendry, Tom

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Pickthall, Colin

Hutton, John

Pike, Peter L.

Ingram, Adam

Pope, Greg

Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew' E)

Jamieson, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Janner, Greville

Prescott, John

Johnston, Sir Russell

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Radice, Giles

Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

Randall, Stuart

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Raynsford, Nick

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Redmond, Martin

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Richardson, Jo

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Keen, Alan

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

Roche, Ms Barbara

590

Rogers, Allan

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Rooker, Jeff

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Rooney, Terry

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Tipping, Paddy

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Trimble, David

Rowlands, Ted

Tyler, Paul

Ruddock, Joan

Vaz, Keith

Sedgemore, Brian

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Sheerman, Barry

Walker, Rt Hon Harold

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wallace, James

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Walley, Joan

Short, Clare

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Simpson, Alan

Wareing, Robert N

Skinner, Dennis

Watson, Mike (Glasgow C)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Wicks, Malcolm H

Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

Wigley, Dafydd

Smith, Llewellyn (Blaenau G'nt)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Williams, Alan (Carmarthen)

Snape, Peter

Wilson, Brian

Soley, Clive

Winnick, David

Spearing, Nigel

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Spellar, John

Worthington, Tony

Squire, Ms Rachel (D'mline W)

Wray, Jimmy

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Wright, Anthony

Steinberg, Gerry

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Stevenson, George

Stott, Roger

Tellers for the Ayes:

Strang, Gavin

Mr. Ken Eastham and

Straw, Jack

Mr. Eric Illsley.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Aitken, Jonathan

Carrington, Matthew

Alexander, Richard

Carttiss, Michael

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Cash, William

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Amess, David

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Ancram, Michael

Churchill, Mr

Arbuthnot, James

Clapplson, William

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Ashby, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Aspinwall, Jack

Coe, Sebastian

Atkins, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Congdon, David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Conway, Derek

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Baldry, Tony

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Cormack, Patrick

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Couchman, James

Bates, Michael

Cran, James

Batiste, Spencer

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Beliingham, Henry

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Bendall, Vivian

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Day, Stephen

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Deva, Niranjan

Body, Sir Richard

Devlin, Tim

Booth, Hartley

Dickens, Geoffrey

Boswell, Tim

Dicks, Terry

Bottomley, Peter

Dorrell, Stephen

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bowden, Andrew

Dover, Den

Bowis, John

Duncan, Alan

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Brandreth, Gyles

Dunn, Bob

Brazier, Julian

Dykes, Hugh

Bright, Graham

Eggar, Tim

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Elletson, Harold

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Emery, Sir Peter

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Budgen, Nicholas

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Burns, Simon

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Burt, Alistair

Evennett, David

Butler, Peter

Faber, David

Butterfill, John

Fabricant, Michael

591

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Jenkin, Bernard

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Jessel, Toby

Fishburn, John Dudley

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Forman, Nigel

Jones, Robert B. (W H 'f' rdshire)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Forth, Eric

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Key, Robert

Fox, Dr Liam

Kilfedder, James

Fox, Sir Marcus

King, Rt Hon Tom

Freeman, Roger

Kirkhope, Timothy

French, Douglas

Knapman, Roger

Fry, Peter

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Gallie, Philip

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Gardiner, Sir George

Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Knox, David

Garnier, Edward

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Gill, Christopher

Lait, Ms Jacqui

Gillan, Ms Cheryl

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Lawrence, Ivan

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Legg, Barry

Gorst, John

Leigh, Edward

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Lidington, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Grylls, Sir Michael

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Lord, Michael

Hague, William

Luff, Peter

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Hampson, Dr Keith

MacKay, Andrew

Hannam, Sir John

Maclean, David

Hargreaves, Andrew

McLoughlin, Patrick

Harris, David

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Madel, David

Hawkins, Nicholas

Maitland, Lady Olga

Hawks ley, Warren

Major, Rt Hon John

Hayes, Jerry

Malone, Gerald

Heald, Oliver

Mans, Keith

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Marland, Paul

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Marlow, Tony

Hendry, Charles

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Hicks, Robert

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Mates, Michael

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Horam, John

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hordern, Sir Peter

Merchant, Piers

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Milligan, Stephen

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

Mills, Iain

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Moate, Roger

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Monro, Sir Hector

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hunter, Andrew

Moss, Malcolm

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Needham, Richard

Jack, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

592

Neubert, Sir Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Steen, Anthony

Nicholls, Patrick

Stephen, Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Stern, Michael

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Stewart, Allan

Norris, Steve

Streeter, Gary

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Sumberg, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Sweeney, Walter

Ottaway, Richard

Sykes, John

Page, Richard

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Paice, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Patnick, Irvine

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Temple-Morris, Peter

Pawsey, James

Thomason, Roy

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Pickles, Eric

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Thornton, Malcolm

Porter, David (Waveney)

Thurnham, Peter

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Powell, William (Corby)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)

Rathbone, Tim

Tracey, Richard

Redwood, John

Tredinnick, David

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Trend, Michael

Richards, Rod

Trotter, Neville

Riddick, Graham

Twinn, Dr Ian

Robathan, Andrew

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Viggers, Peter

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Walden, George

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Waller, Gary

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Ward, John

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sackville, Tom

Waterson, Nigel

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Watts, John

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wheeler, Sir John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Whitney, Ray

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Whittingdale, John

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Widdecombe, Ann

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wiggin, Jerry

Shersby, Michael

Wilkinson, John

Sims, Roger

Willetts, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wilshire, David

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Soames, Nicholas

Wolfson, Mark

Speed, Keith

Wood, Timothy

Spencer, Sir Derek

Yeo, Tim

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Spink, Dr Robert

Tellers for the Noes:

Spring, Richard

Mr. David Lightbown and

Sproat, Iain

Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question again proposed.
It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Education Facilities (Mid Glamorgan)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
10.18 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: Unfortunately, lack of time allows me—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Will right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly?
Mr. Rogers: Unfortunately, lack of time allows me to deal only with the problems facing the education service in Mid Glamorgan. However, I do not want to create the impression that the education service is not providing the citizens with what it has always provided them. Mid Glamorgan, as with Glamorgan before it, has provided the highest standard of education notwithstanding the enormous social and economic difficulties that we have faced as a consequence of our industrial history.
I want first to pay tribute on behalf of myself and my colleagues to the skill and dedication of everyone involved in the education service in the county over the years. Two types of difficulty face us in Mid Glamorgan—those difficulties which are general to all local education authorities, and those peculiar to Mid Glamorgan and the valley authorities of south Wales. General underfunding of the public education service is the problem faced and shared with other local education authorities. For example, on capital financing, Mid Glamorgan's capital building programme averages £6 million to £8 million in any one year, on a revenue budget of £240 million. No business of that size can properly exist on such a low level of capital investment—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I wish to hear the hon. Gentleman. Madam Speaker has already made it clear that Members should be quiet.
Mr. Rogers: That is why we have old, badly maintained schools which are unsuitable, in design and layout, for modern teaching methods and for the delivery of the national curriculum upon which so much emphasis is placed by the Government.
Funding per pupil is the other aspect of funding which is of vital importance. Even allowing for the different basis for funding of the state and the private sector, the funding level per pupil is 50 per cent. higher for the private sector, which is reflected in better buildings, better staffing ratios and smaller class sizes, as well as salaries above the norm.
Much of Mid Glamorgan suffered in the inter-war years. Outward migration and a declining population meant that there was little school building in the 1920s and 1930s. Consequently, our schools are either pre-1917 or post-1950. Both types present maintenance problems. The old schools require extensive improvement if they are to deliver the national curriculum, and the Minister of State knows that very well. The newer schools, which were built to rigid Government-prescribed cost limits, resulted in flat roofs, system building and, in some cases, storage heating rather than central heating systems. That has landed the authority with considerable maintenance problems as the cheaply built structures deteriorate. That category includes most of the large secondary schools in the county area.
594
More than half of the authority's primary schools are pre-first world war, and they are often located in subsidence areas. Maintenance costs are high and the national curriculum has highlighted the lack of a water supply in classrooms, combined with inadequacies in electrical wiring systems and power points, which are necessary for the delivery of science and technology teaching. In the three years between 1990 and 1993 the LEA will have to invest £1·6 million of its own funds to carry out that work. The Government are not prepared to put in any extra money for that provision.
Welsh-medium education is one of the local authority's successes. Each year a new Welsh-medium primary school is opened. There are four Welsh-medium secondary schools in Mid Glamorgan. No other local authority in Wales can match Mid Glamorgan in its provision of Welsh-medium education, but that is not recognised in the capital allocations. There has been no Government recognition of the fact that the opening of a Welsh-medium school with a wide catchment area has little impact on the size of any English-medium school in the area. Welsh-medium schools create an additional demand for accommodation, which is not recognised in the capital grant.
Our county is a deprived area by any and every definition. The educational difficulties in the schools receive no Government recognition, in exactly the same way—oddly enough—that the health service in Glamorgan is not funded on the basis of deprivation factors, as a former Minister acknowledged in a debate some time ago.
Between the levels of special needs children, whom I shall return to later, and of achievers there is a large group of the school population which shows no motivation and has little parental support for educational development. The county has pleaded unsuccessfully for recognition of that.
Then there is the consequent drain on educational funding in the provision of a high level of free meals, clothing grants and so on. Instead, the Government face us with raw league tables by which schools are to be measured. No attempt is made to compensate for the fact that many pupils are deprived from birth of the richness of language, reading materials, educational play materials and parental support.
The local education authority has pioneered nationally a scheme of home-school support teachers, but that is limited by a lack of resources. Although the authority comes high up on the national scale of nursery provision, yet again there is a shortfall of resources which makes it impossible to meet demand within existing budget levels.
I should like to talk briefly about special needs and the poor, unfortunate children who must overcome multiple physical and mental handicaps simply to cope with the ordinary process of living. Many special schools in Mid Glamorgan have inherited their buildings from the old training centres when children with severe learning difficulties were considered uneducable. The buildings as a result are wholly unsuitable in terms of space and design to deliver a broad curriculum. The capitation allowance for special needs pupils is pitifully small. All special apparatus, minibuses, special chairs, standing frames and hydrotherapy pools are financed by private funds raised by the community and committed staff who are often exhausted by the extra fund-raising ventures during evenings and weekends.
Dr. Kim Howells: I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his superb work in the Rhondda in special needs education. Today I spoke to the headmaster of Bryncelynog comprehensive school, Mr. John Lloyd, who told me that he was desperately worried about the future of special needs education. Likewise, Mrs. Diane Johns, the headmistress of Pentyrch primary school. Does my hon. Friend agree that superb pioneering work in special needs education has been done in Mid Glamorgan? The prospects, however, are that schools will be opted out and there will be no provision whatever for this vital area of education. The staff and, I am sure, the parents of children with special needs are worried sick about that.
Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is right. Teachers of special needs pupils face the greatest problems of all. Anyone who visits a special school will see the caring, loving way that the staff deal with children with epilepsy, cerebal palsy or Down's syndrome, and how the children enjoy themselves and become involved. It is an experience to go to one of the concerts that the Rhondda special school puts on to raise money. I urge the Minister to come to one and to recognise the needs of those children. They need extra resources, for example, for transport to school. The LEA is forced to accept the lowest tender which takes no account of the pupils' special needs and disabilities—for example, whether a child is epileptic or requires a special harness or lift to get on and off the vehicle. The Government always insist on the authority accepting the cheapest tender.
The same applies to school meals. The pupils by the nature of their handicaps must stay at school all day. There was a time when the resources were available and the meals were cooked on the premises so that account could be taken of special problems, diets and feeding difficulties. Obviously, some must be individually fed. Now cooking cannot be done on the premises because there are not the resources to maintain that facility. Instead, pre-cooked meals must be brought in.
There is a lack of speech therapists in Mid Glamorgan. It is incredible that over the past year there has not been one speech therapy lesson in the Rhondda special school. How appalling it is to have a special school without a speech therapist. It has been suggested that there is an immediate need for 10 additional speech therapists in Mid Glamorgan, but just one is available. The same is true of physiotherapists, educational psychologists and other support services. The health authority is supposed to provide those services to the education authority, but it, too, does not have sufficient resources. A further £100,000 would be required to reach the nationally prescribed ratio for educational psychologists.
It is clear that Mid Glamorgan is suffering from specific difficulties over and above those that it shares with other authorities. Even so, the local education authority is £8 million above the Secretary of State's standard spending assessment. If Mid Glamorgan's SSA was reduced as a result of charge capping, the effect on the education service would be devastating. The authority would fall even further behind in its attempts to meet our people's needs.
I was appalled at the standard of the speech tonight of the new Secretary of State for Education. If he can deal with such an important debate in such a trivial manner, education is in a parlous state. I despair of that right hon.
596
Gentleman accepting a constructive argument from me —I hope that I do better with the Minister of State at the Welsh Office.
I am concerned about the possible opting out of schools that apply for grant-maintained status. There are five comprehensive schools in my constituency. The opt-out proposal fills me with alarm, especially as those schools will have the ability to select their pupils across the existing catchment boundaries. The first school in the Rhondda that opts out can choose a process of selection that need not be based on educational standards or aptitude—at least the old 11-plus purported to do that. Selection could possibly be dictated by a child's family and social background. Schools could develop an elitist system of selection whereby a child could be rejected, regardless of his abilities, because of his family and social background. Can one imagine the chain reaction in the other four comprehensive schools in Mid Glamorgan? Which one of those schools would end up as the ghetto for those who did not have a place to go to? Is such a process supposed to create the classless society? Such divisiveness would destroy the closely knit valley communities as no other policy that even the Government introduced could manage. I hope that a separate approach is adopted towards education in Wales which recognises our unique needs.
I would rather not raise the matter of the award of the school cleaning contract in Mid Glamorgan, but I must do so because it is causing great concern. That contract is worth £10 million and it has been awarded to a company called Taylorplan. Unfortunately, its chairman is a Labour peer, Lord Parry of Neyland. The Minister must monitor that company because it intends to sack 20 per cent. of the existing work force—about 400 people. That might well mean that the company is unable to fulfil its contract.
There was a time when people would take the job of school cleaner to earn pin money. In the valley communities today the unemployment level stands at 20 per cent. and in some of those communities a wife working at a school needs the money—it is not a good wage even in the current situation—to maintain, not supplement, the family economy.
Taylorplan evidently specialises in bidding low to obtain tenders. It has made losses ever since it started in business and it has had solvency and cash flow problems. Councils and district health authorities have been wary of it. I understand from Mid Glamorgan that it vetted the company closely on financial and performance indicators. In January 1989, Croydon council described it as "a high-risk company" and it insisted that its Australian parent company should give an unconditional guarantee of financial support. Westminster council—that great Socialist authority up the road—was told in February 1988 by the city treasurer that he had reservations about accepting Taylorplan's tender because, he said, it involved a greater than usual degree of risk.
Taylorplan has been paying on its contract £2·40 an hour to cleaners in Suffolk. In Warwickshire, it was paying £2·80 an hour. In Kingston-upon-Thames, its workers were not receiving sick pay and no holiday pay was given to cleaners. It pulled out of its contract with Suffolk county council after only three months. The contract was to involve cleaning 19 schools, but the company ran into problems. The schools were not being properly cleaned.

597
I could give a long catalogue of incidents. For example, at Airedale general hospital, inspections found insects, cobwebs, dust, impacted dirt, urine-stained chairs and dirty windows on wards. Carpets that should have been shampooed had not been cleaned for long periods.
Lord Parry is a member of my political party and is chairman and a director of that company. My hon. Friends and colleagues in Mid Glamorgan feel that it is inappropriate for a Labour peer who espouses a commitment to fairness and supports the statutory minimum wage to be associated in the way I have described. I challenge Lord Parry and his company to give an undertaking to the 1,500 cleaners in Mid Glamorgan that he will maintain proper wage levels and jobs. Either the county has been managing the situation hopelessly or the company is unable to fulfil its contract without a reduction in the work force of more than 20 per cent.
The company must maintain proper standards. Our children have enough handicaps and problems to overcome. We do not want them to be educated in filthy schools. If the company, under the Government's privatisation directives, is to receive such contracts, the Minister of State, who is responsible for education in Wales, must monitor matters and ensure that the contracts are being performed to a proper standard. If not, the company must go immediately.
I do not have time to raise many other problems that we face in Mid Glamorgan. Many of those problems could be resolved with a marginal increase in resources. The problems have been clearly identified. The provision of extra resources is the only way to solve them. I ask the Minister to put his money where his party has been putting its mouth in recent months, and properly to fund the education service in Mid Glamorgan.
10.37 pm
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on his safe return to this place and on his success in raising this issue on the Adjournment.
I will deal first with the hon. Gentleman's last point —the Mid Glamorgan cleaning contract. It is for the authority to be satisfied that the standards that it requires of contractors are clearly set out in contract specifications and that adequate monitoring arrangements are in place. If contractors fall below those standards, it is open to the authority to seek redress in the normal way. I stress that it is the responsibility of the relevant authority to ensure that it receives the service for which it is paying.
The hon. Gentleman has chosen a wide-ranging subject and has covered a number of issues. I doubt whether I shall be able to answer all the points that he raised. I shall read his speech in Hansard and, if necessary, cover in correspondence any points that I am unable to deal with in my reply.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about school buildings in Mid Glamorgan, and I appreciate some of his concerns. Over the years, since I have had responsibility for education, I have visited many schools in Mid Glamorgan. I shall be visiting the area again next Tuesday, when I hope to visit Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen, at the school's request, to see the condition of the buildings.
There is no doubt that over the years local education authorities have not invested sufficient funds in maintaining their education estate and that they have built
598
up a considerable backlog of maintenance. The exact extent of the backlog is not known, but work by the education authorities following the efficiency circles initiative of my right hon. and learned Friend the former Secretary of State should enable them to determine the size of the task that they have set themselves through lack of investment.
Recently prepared information suggests that Mid Glamorgan had about £9 million worth of outstanding maintenance in 1987, and that by 1991 this had risen to about £18 million. My officials meet the education authorities every year to discuss their capital spending programmes. They also inquire about the levels of maintenance spending, but this is not always easy for the education authorities to determine, especially if maintenance is carried out through a central organisation rather than through the education building programme.
Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way?
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has left me only 10 minutes in which to reply. I am seeking to provide him with information.
Most problems are seen in schools which were system built 20 to 30 years ago, or in very old school buildings. There is no doubt that a large proportion of Mid Glamorgan schools fall into those categories. Central Government contribute towards county councils' capital spending by issuing approvals to borrow. In our planning for local authority spending we also take into account councils' past histories of supporting capital spending from their revenue accounts. This support is not, generally, directed at specific schemes or to particular service areas. In other words, we do not tell local authorities how to spend their resources, and it is for them to decide how to allocate them between services in the light of their own needs and priorities.
The level of potential capital investment that the Government plan for Welsh local education authorities is sufficient for them to meet their obligations according to their own priorities. In recent years, substantial increases in gross provision for education have been made. Between 1985–86 and 1991–92, capital resources notionally made available to LEAs for education building increased in real terms by no less than 38 per cent. Last year, the overall gross provision for education capital was £66·6 million. This year we have provided for gross capital expenditure by the LEA of about £63 million. That sum would have been higher but for the transfer of higher education from the local education authorities. Capital support for the higher education sector in this year has been set at almost £5·6 million. These figures reflect the high priority that the Government have given to the improvement of schools. It must be said, however, that local education authorities collectively have chosen to spend less than the Government have provided for in the past few years by 4·6 per cent. in 1989–90, 3·5 per cent. in 1990–91, and an estimated 15 per cent. in 1991–92, amounting to nearly £10 million.
Mr. Rogers: Mid Glamorgan?
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Mid Glamorgan, and the figures that I have given are for the whole of Wales. I understand, however, that Mid Glamorgan has been spending about the notional allocation.

599
Of course, capital spending is not the full picture, especially as much maintenance work can be carried out from revenue accounts, and in 1991–92 education authorities budgeted to spend almost 30 per cent. more—
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Minister give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, Members know very well that they must then contain themselves, however difficult that may be.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I have only four minutes in which to cover all the points, and I want to discuss not only school buildings but special education needs, speech therapy and all the other subjects that the hon. Member for Rhondda raised.
I want to say a word about the work carried out from revenue accounts. In 1991–92, education authorities budgeted to spend almost 30 per cent. more than they did in 1979–80. Taken together with the decline in the school population, that means that for each pupil in Wales the average expenditure has risen by some 36 per cent. to £1,321 per primary pupil and by more than 40 per cent. to £1,884 per secondary pupil. At primary level, Mid Glamorgan is spending slightly less than the average, at £1,288 per pupil, but spending at secondary level is slightly above average, at £1,908 per pupil.
A difficulty which must be recognised is the continuing high level of surplus places in the system. There are some 118,000 such places in Wales altogether, which are estimated to drain local education authorities' resources by more that £20 million per year. That money could be better spent delivering better services in better schools.
Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Adjournment debate is specifically about education facilities in Mid Glamorgan, but all the Minister's answers have been about Wales in general. I know that you are not responsible for what he says, but surely he should deal with the subject of the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The Minister is well within the subject matter.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear the facts, but I was about to say that Mid Glamorgan continues to carry more than 13,000 surplus primary places and nearly 7,500 surplus secondary places. The hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a waste of resources.
The system of unhypothecated credit approvals for education building was instituted at the request of the local authorities themselves. If they then choose to spend their resources on services other than education, it is to those authorities that parents and right hon. Members should look to ensure that children receive the best possible education in the best possible surroundings. The alternative is that we in central Government should dictate to the LEAs what their education capital spending must be. I do not think that the local authorities would take kindly to that proposal, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is never far from my mind when I hear about "crumbling schools"—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the increases in the powers of the European Parliament embodied in the treaty of European unity signed at Maastricht and specify the consequential restrictions on the powers of(a) the Commission, (b) the Council of Ministers and (c) national parliaments.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The treaty on European union increases the role of the European Parliament in a range of ways, both legislative and non-legislative. In some cases these are new. In others, they are extensions of existing procedures to new articles.

  All of these provisions are clearly set out in the treaty on European union. Together they represent no basic change in the existing institutional structure. The Parliament will have greater powers to scrutinise the Commission, but the Council of Ministers will remain the ultimate decision-making body in the Community and its members will remain accountable to their national parliaments.

  European Movement
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which European Community Governments make state contributions to the European Movement in their countries; and if he will list these and the amounts.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government phased out direct funding to the British council of the European Movement in 1985. Where possible, we continue to support its work through other means. We have no information about Government funding to the European Movement in other Community member states.

  Visas (Poles)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many students studying English at Polish universities were refused visas to visit the United Kingdom in the past 12 months; and what reason there was for each refusal.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A total of 44,684 visas were issued at Warsaw in 1991; 2,642 applications were refused. Of those applications refused, 1,269 were from persons under 25 requesting a visa for a single entry into the United Kingdom. Statistics are not readily available to provide the further information requested.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current 54
  average waiting time for Polish citizens waiting at the British consulate for interview on their application for a visa for admission to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Provided that all supporting documentary evidence is available, a personal applicant for an entry clearance at Warsaw would currently be interviewed, if necessary, on the same day as the embassy receives the application.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what competences, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, Mr. Delors, on behalf of the European Commission, has announced that he is ready to renounce.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Delors has made no such announcement. However the Commission's work programme for 1992 stressed the importance of the principle of subsidiarity.

  Colonial Governors
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the annual leave entitlement of each of the governors of the remaining colonies; how many home leave journeys are allowed each year; and what is the annual cost.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Those governors on diplomatic service terms are entitled to 42 days annual leave plus 14 days local leave, which must be taken at post. The governors of Montserrat, St. Helena and Turks and Caicos are entitled to 35 days plus seven days local leave. Entitlements to leave passages to the United Kingdom, and current costs, including costs for spouses, are as follows:

  £

  Anguilla:

  Mid-tour leave after 18 months

  3,190

  One recreational journey in three complete years of service

  1,528

  BVI:

  Mid-tour leave after 18 months

  1,601

  One recreational journey in three years

  690

  Falkland Islands:

  Mid-tour leave after one year

  RAF flights

  One recreational journey in three years

  Montserrat:

  Mid-tour leave after one year

  1,610

  One recreational journey in three years

  784

  St. Helena:

  Mid-tour leave after one year

  5,108

  One recreational journey in three years

  3,150

  Turks and Caicos:

  Mid-tour leave after one year

  5,128

  One recreational journey in three years

  1,068

  Average costs over one year are £11,901.

  Leave entitlements and passages for governors of Bermuda, Cayman Islands and Hong Kong are met by their respective Governments.

  Leave entitlement and the cost of passages for the governor of Gibraltar are the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.
  55
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the annual cost of running the official residencies of each of the governors of the remaining colonies.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Of the 15 dependent territories there are resident governors in only ten. The upkeep of their residences is the responsibility of each territory's Government, but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does on occasions assist with these expenditures. As a result, the overseas estate department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has, during the 1991–92 financial year, financed running costs in three of these: Anguilla —£30,000; Grand Turk—£6,000; and Montserrat—£40,000.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the current salary and (b) the proposed salary for the next financial year for the governors of the remaining British colonies.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The governors of Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands are diplomatic service grade 4 officers—salary scale £37,928 to £42,870. The governor of the Falkland Islands is a senior grade diplomatic service officer—salary point 5, £51,300. The governors of Montserrat, St. Helena and Turks and Caicos are paid a partial salary by their respective Governments and their salary is "topped up", to the mean of the DS4 scale£40,399—by Her Majesty's Government. Current topping up costs are £13,368, £14,040, and £22,860 respectively. The governors of Bermuda, Cayman Islands and Hong Kong are paid entirely by their respective Governments and there are no salary costs falling to Her Majesty's Government. The governors/commissioners of the British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, Pitcairn Henderson Ducie and Oeno Islands, and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are non-resident and there are no direct salary costs. The governor of Gibraltar is paid by the Ministry of Defence.

  Salary costs for the next financial year are dependent on salary increase settlements for the civil service, which will be negotiated in due course.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official travelling arrangements by means of ship, plane or car are provided for each of the governors of the remaining colonies; and what is the annual cost for each governorship.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Her Majesty's Government provide the following:

  Place

  Transport

  Cost

  Falkland Islands:

  Land-Rover

  £16,000

  Turks and Caicos Islands:

  Taxi

  £15,700

  Montserrat:

  Range Rover

  £21,500

  Anguilla:

  Range Rover

  £24,400

  Other costs are met by the Governments of the respective dependent territories.

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to support the call by European Community Commissioner Ripa di Meana that European 56
  Community financial and technical assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States should be dependent on the shut-down of certain nuclear reactors.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's Government strongly support international efforts to improve the safety of nuclear power installation in eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States. We recognise, however, that the unconditional closure of nuclear power stations is not a feasible option until practical alternative supplies of energy exist.

ENVIRONMENT

  United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the names of Her Majesty's Government's delegates to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Prime Minister has already announced his intention to attend part of the Earth summit. I also propose to attend part of the summit, as do my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State responsible for overseas development and the Minister for the Environment and Countryside. Officials from the Departments most closely involved will also be included in the delegation. Her Majesty's Government have offered around 12 places as observers on the delegation to environment and development groups, local government, business and trade unions, the scientific community and youth.

  Housing Associations
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of new home completions by housing associations in 1991–92; and what is the expected level for 1992–93.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1991–92, the Housing Corporation's approved development programme produced an estimated 27,100 housing association homes available for occupation —2,000 more than its original target. Final figures are expected towards the end of May. The corporation's target for 1992–93 is 43,400 homes.

  Rents-to-mortgages Scheme
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council tenants he expects to convert rents into during the coming year; and if he make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Rents to mortgages—RTM—will provide a valuable new low-risk route into owner-occupation, by allowing tenants to use the money they would otherwise have paid as rent to service a mortgage which gives them a stake in their own homes. At present the English pilot scheme for RTM is available only to new town tenants in Basildon, but we will legislate to extend it to local authority tenants.

  London Borough Boundaries
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the reports published by the Local Government Boundary Commission regarding the boundaries of London boroughs including the dates of

  Timetables of published local government boundary commission reports on the London boroughs

  Published reports

  Report number

  Date of first draft proposals

  Date by which comments were to be received

  Date of further draft proposals

  Date by which comments were to be received

  Date of publication of final report

  Barnet—boundaries with Harrow and Hcrtsmere

  594

  11 July 1988

  12 September 1988

  —

  —

  25 January 1991

  Bexley—boundaries with Barking and Dagenham, Thurrock and Dartford

  598

  11 July 1988

  12 September 1988

  —

  —

  28 February 1991

  Bromley—boundaries with Bexley, Tandridge, Sevenoaks and part of Bexley's boundary with Dartford

  620

  29 May 1989

  24 July 1989

  20 March 1991

  15 May 1991

  26 February 1992

  City of London—boundaries with City of Westminster, Camden, Hackney, Islington, Lambeth, Southwark and Tower Hamlets

  636

  5 March 1990

  I May 1990

  17 May 1991

  12 July 1991

  23 April 1992

  Croydon—boundaries with Bromley, Reigate and Banstead and Tandridge

  615

  23 January 1989

  20 March 1989

  20 March 1991

  15 May 1991

  22 November 1991

  Croydon—boundary with Lambeth

  623

  21 June 1991

  16 August 1991

  —

  —

  12 February 1992

  Crystal Palace Area—boundaries of Bromley, Croydon, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark

  632

  19 August 1991

  14 October 1991

  —

  —

  22 April 1992

  Greenwich—boundaries with Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Newham and Tower Hamlets

  622

  1 October 1990

  10 December 1990

  2 August 1991

  27 September 1991

  31 January 1992

  Harrow—boundaries with Ealing, Hillingdon, Hertsmere and Three Rivers

  610

  23 October 1989

  18 December 1989

  —

  —

  4 October 1991

  Islington—boundaries with Camden, Hackney and Haringey

  638

  11 June 1990

  6 August 1990

  15 May 1991

  12 June 1991

  22 April 1992

  Lambeth—boundary with Southwark

  624

  30 April 1991

  25 June 1991

  —

  —

  19 February 1992

  Southwark—boundaries with Lewisham and Tower Hamlets

  637

  20 March 1991

  15 May 1991

  4 December 1991

  12 February 1992

  29 April 1992

  Tower Hamlets—boundary with Hackney

  634

  12 April 1991

  7 June 1991

  —

  —

  13 April 1992

  Waltham Forest—boundaries with Enfield, Hackney, Haringey and Epping Forest and part of Enfield's boundary with Epping Forest

  618

  19 September 1988

  14 November 1988

  26 April 1991

  21 June 1991

  28 Februarry 1992

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make orders implementing the various final reports of the Local Government Boundary Commission into the boundaries of London boroughs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The first order is expected to be made by the end of June; others where the proposals have been accepted should have orders made later this year.
  58
  publication of first and further draft proposals, the dates by which comments were to be received and the dates of publication of final reports.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is set out in the table.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Local Government Boundary Commission to have completed its examination of the boundaries of all London boroughs.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  By 31 October 1992.
  59
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there are any proposed boundary changes in London for which the Local Government Boundary Commission has yet to issue first draft proposals.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No.

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the legislative measures that govern the work of the Local Government Boundary Commission and the criteria it uses to review local government boundaries.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Local Government Boundary Commission is required under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 to carry out local government reviews as directed by the Secretary of State.

  The commission must have regard to the need for effective and convenient local government.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Local Government Commission for England is to carry out an examination of the structure of local government in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are no plans to change the general structure of local government in London. The Local Government Act 1992 provides for changes to local government structure to be made only where unitary authorities do not already exist—that is, in the shire counties of England. The new Local Government Commission will, however, have the power to recommend changes to local government boundaries and electoral arrangements in any area, including London.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Justice Services
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what ways he intends to support the criminal justice services; and if he will list the services he intends to support and the resources which will be available to them.

  Mr. Jack
  The main aims of the criminal justice system are detailed in paragraph 4.1 of the Home Office annual report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  My right hon. and learned Friend will continue the Government's support for the criminal justice services for which he has responsibility by ensuring that they can operate within an appropriate legislative framework, supported where necessary by administrative guidance, and by making appropriate financial provision. The criminal justice services for which he has statutory responsibility are prisons, for which the Home Office is directly responsible, and the police and probation services. In addition, the Home Office provides funding for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In the current financial year, the Home Office will provide the following financial resources in the discharge of these responsibilities.
  60

  £million

  Prisons

  1,363

  Police

  3,016

  Probation

  355

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  137

  Terrorism
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking relating to the allocation of the various responsibilities of the police and others, in relation to anti-terrorist activities on the British mainland.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on Friday 8 May.

  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Boundary Commission to publish its findings for parliamentary seats in the county of Essex.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the Boundary Commission for England has not yet decided when it will publish its provisional recommendations for the county of Essex, although it is likely that this will be towards the end of the review.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the parliamentary boundary commission to begin consultation on the review of parliamentary boundaries in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the Boundary Commission for England has not yet decided when it will publish its provisional recommendations for London boroughs, although it is likely that this will be towards the end of the review.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the legislative measures which govern the work of the parliamentary boundary commission and the criteria it uses to review parliamentary boundaries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The legislation that governs the work of the parliamentary boundary commissions is the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. The criteria used to review parliamentary boundaries are set out in schedule 2 to that Act which gives the rules for the redistribution of seats.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales will be working on the basis of the existing local government boundaries or the eventual government proposals for new boundaries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The local government boundaries which will be used by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales in its next general review of constituencies will depend upon the timing of that review. This has yet to be decided.

  Squatting
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish legislation arising out of the consultation paper dealing with the law on squatting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government are committed to improving remedies against squatting. A consultation paper setting out various options was published last October, requesting comments by 31 March. A wide variety of individuals and organisations responded.

  These comments will be valuable in guiding work by ourselves and other Government Departments in determining how best to improve law in this area.

  Voting
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what forms he holds information on the numbers of postal, proxy and expatriate votes issued and used during the 1987 and 1992 general elections.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of electors on the postal voters list and the number of postal ballot paper covering envelopes returned at the 1987 general election were published in "Election Expenses, a Return of the Expenses of each Candidate"—HC426—by HMSO. The statistics for the 1992 general election are currently being compiled from returns made by acting returning officers and will be published in due course. Information about the number of proxy voters voting in person—whether on behalf of United Kingdom residents or overseas electors—is not collected centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on Monday 11 May 1992, at column 20, for information about overseas electors.

  Ticket Touts (FA Cup)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to institute an inquiry into the activities of ticket touts at this year's Football Association cup final.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. The distribution and sale of tickets for this event is a matter for the Football Association. The investigation of any criminal offences which may have been committed is an operational matter for the police. There is no role here for the Home Office.

EDUCATION

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

  Mr. Forman
  A survey of the ethnic origins of staff was undertaken in 1990 since when our data base has been continuously updated as new staff join the Department. In addition in 1990 this Department launched its own programme of action to achieve equality of opportunity for people of ethnic minority origin. We have already achieved the objective to establish ethnic origin data on 98 per cent. of our staff.
  62
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Department are members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Forman
  We do not hold information on the ethnic origin of all our staff but of those who have responded to the ethnic monitoring survey—98 per cent.—those from ethnic minorities at 1 May 1992 are:

  Number

  Percentage

  Grade 1–4

  0

  0

  Grade 5–6

  6

  1

  Grade 7

  7

  4

  Overall

  199

  8

  The survey was conducted on the understanding that anonymity would be preserved. Any further breakdown of the figures could identify individuals and cannot therefore be provided. The figures provided for each grade are on a head count basis and include grade equivalents.

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

  Mr. Forman
  Recruitment of grades above administrative officer is undertaken by the Recruitment and Assessment Services agency on behalf of the Civil Service Commissioners. Various steps have been taken by the agency to aid recruitment of members of ethnic minorities including the increase of contacts with minority communities and extending links with universities, polytechnics and tertiary colleges to attract a wider range of applicants generally and specifically from ethnic minorities.

  Bullying
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what advice has been given by his Department to local education authorities on how to deal with bullying in schools;

  (2) what representations he has received about the incidence of bullying in secondary schools;

  (3) how many cases of bullying have been drawn to the attention of his Department over the past five years.

  Mr. Forth
  The report of the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools, chaired by Lord Elton and published in 1989, contained advice on bullying. Copies of the report were sent to all schools and local education authorities in England and Wales. The Department is currently funding research to identify successful intervention strategies in order to provide practical advice to all schools when the project is completed in August 1993. There are no central records on bullying.

  National Union of Students
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about automatic membership of the National Union of Students.

  Mr. Forman
  During the course of the consultations initiated by the Government on student unions, my right hon. Friend has received a variety of representations on the membership of campus unions and the National Union
  63
  of Students. Students' membership of the NUS is indirect: it is a confederation of those campus unions which choose to affiliate.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the access funds;

  (2) what plans exist to increase the size of the access funds;

  (3) what representations he has received about the adequacy of the access funds.

  Mr. Forman
  The present access funds are adequate for their purpose if properly targeted. The Government will consider future provision in this year's public expenditure survey. This will take into account representations received from various organisations and institutions.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current size of the access funds; what is the total number of students eligible for those funds; and what were the size of the funds and the number of students when the access funds were first introduced.

  Mr. Forman
  This year £25.8 million is available for England, Wales and Scotland and an estimated 863,000 higher and further education students are eligible for the access funds. For 1990–91 the figures were £25 million and 768,000 students. It is for institutions to decide which students should receive payments from their funds.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total number of outstanding inquiries received about obtaining grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  There is no official record of inquiries about obtaining grant-maintained status; however, there are 43 outstanding proposals published by governors of schools seeking to obtain grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary schools have become grant-maintained.

  Mr. Forth
  There are 34 grant-maintained primary schools in England, with a further seven so far approved to begin in September 1992.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he intends to take to facilitate grant-maintained schools becoming city technology colleges.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear his commitment to extending the benefits of city technology colleges to schools wishing to become grant-maintained technology colleges. The Government will be setting out their proposals for this and other measures to extend parental choice and the diversity of schools in a White Paper to be published by the end of the summer.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total number of grant-maintained schools.
  64
  Mr. Forth
  There are 217 GM schools operating in England, with a further 31 so far approved to begin in September 1992.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current average length of time taken to determine grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  The current average length of time from publication of proposals to decision is approximately 4·5 months.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many denominational schools have obtained grant-maintained status; and how many inquiries are outstanding from such schools for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  There are 17 denominational grant-maintained schools. Proposals for a further four have been approved. Proposals from two further schools will be determined in due course.

  Police and Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to encourage greater co-operation between police and schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, school governing bodies are required to report annually to parents on steps taken to strengthen links with the community, including the police. Advice on good practice in police/school liaison was contained in HM inspectorate's publication "Our Policeman" published in 1989. The Elton report on "Discipline in Schools", distributed to all LEAs and schools in March 1989, also gave advice on links with the police. The Department is currently funding a research project by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders on the role of the education service in youth crime prevention. My right hon. Friend will wish to review the general question of links between schools and the police in the light of the outcomes of that project.

  Truancy
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans he has to reduce the incidence of truancy in schools;

  (2) what is the estimated level of truancy in secondary schools (a) nationally and (b) by reference to local education authority area.

  Mr. Forth
  Truancy is a serious matter. It undermines the educational process and contributes to the juvenile crime rate. Figures are not collected centrally, but truancy is known to be particularly prevalent in the latter years of secondary schooling, where as many as one in five pupils in some schools truant. The Department is currently supporting through the grants for education support and training—GEST—programme projects in a number of LEAs designed to improve school attendance.

  My right hon. Friend intends to make truancy a priority for the Department. In order to establish the full extent of the problem, maintained schools are required, from August 1992, to publish their rates of unauthorised absence. From this school year reports to parents on individual pupils will also record instances of truancy. In

  65
  accordance with the parents charter commitment, the Government intend to require the collection of truancy information for local comparative tables from 1993.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will bring forward plans to reform teacher training to provide for greater time to be spent on the practical as distinct from the theoretical aspect of teaching.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government issued in January a consultation document with proposals for the reform of the training of secondary school teachers. My right hon. Friend is studying the responses to those proposals and the advice he has recently received on the proposals from the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. It remains our intention to see a start made this September in the introduction of reforms on the lines we have proposed. The Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education has also been asked to advise on the reform of training for primary school teachers, taking account of the report on curriculum organisation and classroom practice in primary schools which was issued in February. The council has been asked to provide its advice by June.

  Disciplinary Measures
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the disciplinary measures available to teachers in secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Effective learning can take place only in an orderly atmosphere. Headteachers are responsible for maintaining discipline within their schools on a day-to-day basis in accordance with any general principles set out by the governing body. Within the policies of individual schools teachers are free to adopt a range of disciplinary measures other than corporal punishment, which is prohibited in maintained schools and for certain categories of pupils in some independent schools. The Elton report on "Discipline in Schools", distributed to all LEAs and schools in March 1989, gave practical advice on action at school and classroom level to promote good behaviour and tackle bad behaviour.

  League Tables
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about his plans regarding league tables of schools by examination results; and if he will make it his policy to broaden such tables to take account of a range of other factors including socio-economic, regional and ethnic mixes.

  Mr. Forth
  New regulations governing the publication of comparative tables of schools' performance in 1992 will be published later this month, together with a circular setting out the Government's policy.

  The Department will continue to examine ways of improving the tables in future years, including the possible use of measures of pupils' progress through the national curriculum when the necessary information is available.

  Staff Statistics
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the number of non-teaching staff employed by local education authorities and the Department of Education, full-time equivalents.
  66
  Mr. Forth
  In December 1991, a total of 364,500 full-time equivalent staff other than teachers and lecturers were employed in local authority education in England. A further 2,400 full-time equivalent staff are currently employed in the Department for Education and Her Majesty's inspectorate.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the number of teachers in local authority-funded schools, full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1991, a total of 392,500 full-time equivalent—FTE—teachers were employed in the LEA-maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in England. A further 2,400 FTE teachers were employed in grant-maintained schools in England.

  Education (Schools) Act 1992
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for the implementation of the Education (Schools) Act 1992.

  Mr. Patten
  I have decided to recommend to the Queen in Council that Her Majesty should appoint Professor Stewart Sutherland, Vice-Chancellor of the university of London, as Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in England for five years in the first instance with effect from I September 1992. I am delighted to have been able to secure Professor Sutherland's services for this important new job. I should like to thank the university of London for having accepted that he should take on this responsibility concurrently with the balance of his term as Vice-Chancellor of London university and indeed to be available immediately to help with the preparations for the new office.

  The new schools inspection arrangements which we enacted in the last Parliament are a key component of the parents charter published last autumn. Professor Sutherland will bring just the right blend of academic distinction, administrative experience, authority and commitment to ensure the success of this initiative.

  So as to be able to receive advice on matter relating to the strategic planning of the new office I have today appointed Professor Sutherland as a part-time consultant to the Department on the creation of the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what arrangements he intends to make for national curriculum assessments in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patten
  I have today published for consultation draft orders to govern the assessment under the national curriculum in 1993 of seven-year-olds in the core subjects —English, mathematics, science—and technology, history and geography, and of 14-year-olds in the core subjects and technology. I am placing copies of the draft orders, together with drafts of the accompanying circulars, in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Next year's assessment of 14-year-olds will be the first under statutory arrangements. They will apply to all maintained secondary schools, city technology colleges and such independent schools as choose to participate. The key main features will be:

  67
  —short, unseen written examinations covering the key elements of each subject under assessment, with a standardised longer practical test of pupils' designing and making skills in technology;
  —the assessment by teachers of each pupil's attainments on the basis of their school work across the whole of each subject to provide a detailed diagnosis of strengths and weaknesses which will inform GCSE option choices and future teaching;
  —a rigorous audit by independent examining bodies of each school's test marking and teacher assessments before assessment results are reported to parents or published. The examining bodies will be designated by the Secretaries of State on the advice of the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC);
  —provision for test results to be preferred to teacher assessments in determining overall subject scores where both are available in relation to the same AT, with teacher assessments used in relation to attainment targets which are not tested.

  We are proposing that the written examinations of 14-year-olds in 1993 should take place in the week beginning 7 June.

  These arrangements, proposed in the light of advice from SEAC, will secure for the first time reliable assessments of 14-year-olds nationwide for the purpose of reporting to parents and more generally. They will also inform teachers of how, at a critical stage of development, each of their pupils is progressing in each aspect of each subject. They will provide the underpinning to raise standards of achievement in our secondary schools.

WALES

  PCBs
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contribution his Department has(a) made to date and (b) plans to make to the revision of waste management paper No. 6 on technical guidance on the treatment and disposal of polychlorinated byphenel wastes.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Waste management papers are produced by the Department of the Environment who will be consulting other Government Departments including the Welsh Office on the revision of waste management paper No. 6.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he intends to make for the national curriculum assessment arrangements in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today published for consultation, in parallel with the Secretary of State for Education, draft orders to govern next year's arrangements to assess 14-year-olds in Wales, and those for seven-year-olds will be published later this week.

  Next year's assessments will be the first statutory arrangements for 14-year-olds and will cover the core subjects, technology and, where taught, Welsh second language. The arrangements are intended to be rigorous and informative and will comprise:
  Predominantly a combination of short, written, timed examinations and teachers' own assessment of pupils' attainment based on their continuous school work;
  Provision for test results to be preferred to teacher assessments in determining overall subject scores where
  68
  both are available in relation to the same attainment target, with teacher asssessments used in relation to attainment targets which are not subject to such tests;
  The assessment of Welsh and Welsh second language will provide for the testing of oral skills, and technology will include a longer practical task to test pupils' designing and making skills in this subject;
  The consistency of standards and results between schools and LEAs in Wales will be audited by an independent examining body before reports are made to parents or the results published more generally;
  In line with the arrangements for schools in England it is proposed that the written tests for 14-year-olds in 1993 should take place in week commencing 7 June.

  The proposed arrangements, which are based on the advice and development work of the School Examinations and Assessment Council, are intended to provide a rigorous and reliable assessment of 14-year-olds as they prepare for future GCSE and other public examinations later in their schooling. They will apply to both LEA maintained and grant-maintained schools in Wales and such independent schools as choose to participate. The results will be fully reported to parents.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  RMS St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there has been any change in the unions recognised to represent the crews of RMS St. Helena.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Recognition of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—RMT—was withdrawn by the St. Helena Government with effect from 1 January 1992. The St. Helena Government will recognise the St. Helena General Workers Union or any other local body or group selected by the crew to represent them in negotiations with the employers.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent arrangements have been made about the salaries of the officers and crew of RMS St. Helena.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  These arrangements are a matter for the St. Helena Government, as employers, and the officers and ratings and not for Her Majesty's Government.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those companies qualifying to tender for the new RMS St. Helena contract.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 11 May 1992]: The closing date for companies to express an interest in tendering for the new contract for the management of RMS St. Helena was Friday 8 May. The indications are that there has been a very substantial response. A decision on those who will be invited to tender will be made shortly.

  "Children by Choice not Chance"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether copies of the full report, or a salient summary, of the Overseas Development Administration's report "Children by Choice not Chance" will be made available by the British delegation to the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in June.
  69
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 11 May 1992]: Yes, copies of "Children by Choice not Chance" will be made available by the British delegation at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in June. Copies of the booklet were also distributed to participants at a preparatory meeting for the conference last August.

  Forest Management
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Overseas Development Administration was represented at the lecture on wise forest management by Don Cleary at the recent Oxford tropical forest conference; and what action is being taken in the area of forest management.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 11 May 1992]: The ODA was represented at the Oxford Forestry Institute tropical forestry conference. Promoting the sustainable management of tropical forests is the prime purpose of ODA-funded activities in this field. It includes taking full account of relevant social issues.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Data Collection
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to change the way in which his Department collects data on the agricultural industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The ways in which my Department collects statistical data on the agricultural industry are kept under continual review, including through the survey control system. I have no plans at present for significant changes.

  Cattle (Salmonella)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what circumstances his Department sends in its veterinary services to investigate cases of salmonella poisoning in cattle; what charges are then payable by the farmers concerned; and whether these arrangements differ depending upon whether farmers are involved in milk or meat production.

  Mr. Soames
  The Zoonoses Order 1989 requires isolations of salmonella to be notified to a veterinary officer of the Ministry. The action taken by the Ministry on receipt of a salmonella report depends on the circumstances of the case and in particular whether it is considered to be primarily an animal health matter or a human health risk.

  The responsibility for dealing with animal health matters rests with the farmer's veterinary surgeon since the animals are under his care. If the veterinary surgeon requests further advice from the Ministry's state veterinary service, on an animal health matter, an advisory visit to the farm would be provided on a chargeable basis.

  The charge for an advisory visit is based on the time spent by the veterinary investigation officer on the farm with possible additional charges for any laboratory examinations carried out on samples taken during the visit.

  Where the Ministry considers that there are significant human health risks associated with the case the matter is
  70
  investigated free of charge by the state veterinary service in collaboration, where appropriate, with the local medical and environmental health authorities. The farmer's veterinary surgeon is informed of the action to be taken.

  These procedures apply irrespective of whether a farmer is involved in milk or meat production.

  Fisheries Conservation
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on measures to supplement European Community requirements for fisheries conservation.

  Mr. Curry
  The EC Fisheries Council agreed in October 1991 on a significant package of technical conservation measures which take effect from 1 June 1992. United Kingdom fishermen made it clear that they were willing to go further in some respects in order to help conservation. After consulting the industry we have decided to apply the following additional and complementary measures on a national basis from 1 June.

  For all United Kingdom vessels we shall operate a minimum landing size for whiting maintained at 27 cm rather than reduced to 23 cm as allowed for by the EC; an anti-ballooning provision for whitefish fisheries which is designed to prevent closure of meshes by requiring the circumference of the cod end of the net to be no greater than that of the adjacent part of the net.

  In the North sea and west of Scotland area where the EC's minimum mesh size is to increase to 100 mm for roundfish fisheries the EC's further measure to permit the optional use of a square mesh panel will be adopted. While we shall no longer require a 90 mm square mesh panel in a 90 mm diamond mesh net, mesh selectivity will be enhanced by the EC provision to limit the number of meshes round the cod end and our own anti-ballooning provision.

  To complement the increase in the EC's minimum mesh size in the Irish sea from 70 to 80 mm we shall increase our present unilateral requirement for a square mesh panel from 75 to 80 mm for all whitefish nets with meshes between 80 and 89 mm inclusive in the Irish sea—area VIIA—and also apply the same requirement in area VI south of 56° N to remove the anomalous position of this area and to assist enforcement.

  We shall continue to require the use of an 80 mm square mesh panel when fishing for nephrops in areas IV and VI. We shall retain the present requirement for a 75 mm square mesh panel for nephrops nets with meshes of between 70 and 85 mm inclusive in the Irish sea—area VIIa—and introduce it for all nephrops nets in the rest of area VII. In this way the discards of young whitefish from all nephrops fisheries undertaken by United Kingdom vessels should be reduced.

  Further, from 1 June all licensed fishing vessels will be subject to a one net rule, designed to improve the enforcement of minimum mesh size nets, and we intend to apply it to smaller vessels when licensing is extended to them.

  The necessary regulations will be laid shortly.

  I greatly welcome the constructive response of the United Kingdom fishing industry to the need for national measures to supplement the new Community measures being applied from 1 June because as a significant fishing nation we have a strong interest in making conservation work. We will continue to work for agreement on similar

  71
  measures and further improvements in the EC technical conservation measures, but in the meanwhile the national measures which we are introducing will make an important additional contribution to conserving the stocks, including hard-pressed haddock and cod stocks in the North sea, of which United Kingdom fishermen take 89 per cent. and 46 per cent. respectively. These conservation measures are vital to our fishermen's long-term future and to our consumers.

  We are very pleased that the Irish Government too intend to maintain the minimum landing size for whiting for Irish vessels at 27cm. We regard this joint move in the Irish sea as very important and we are exploring ways of taking this collaboration further.

TRANSPORT

  Road Humps
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when traffic calming measures are being considered, what discretion exists for local authorities to decide the distance between humps installed on urban roads.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Local highway authorities are required to comply with the Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1990 which state, in regulation 2, that road humps forming a series of two or more shall be spaced so that not less than 20 m nor more than 150 m lies between one hump and the one next to it.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints the Department has received from road users about the installation of road humps.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There have been some complaints, but no central record is kept of the number of these and it would not be economic to produce such figures. Most representations received by the Department about road humps are positive and relate to practical advice on siting and installation.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations the Department has received from the Road Haulage Association, bus users' associations and other similar trade bodies about road humps.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Comments were received from a wide range of interested organisations including the Road Haulage Association and bus users' associations who were consulted when the road humps regulations were made.

  Port of Tilbury
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for how much the port of Tilbury was sold; and what was the valuation of the port of Tilbury, as advised to him or the Port of London Authority, prior to the sale.

  Mr. Norris
  The port of Tilbury was sold to International Transport Ltd, a management and employee buy-out team, at a price of £32 million. Prior to the sale the Port of London Authority, as the vendors, were advised of 72
  benchmark valuation ranges for the sale of the port of Tilbury of £27 million to £37 million for a trade sale and of £25 million to £34 million for a leveraged buy-out.

  Stockport Bypass
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to meet a deputation from the Stockport metropolitan borough council to discuss the line of route of the Stockport north-south A6(M) bypass.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Arrangements for a meeting will be put in hand shortly.

  London Underground
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received to improve services on the northern line of London Underground.

  Mr. Norris
  The service has already improved significantly. London Underground Limited has a number of proposals to improve it further, not all of which require Government approval. LUL's intention is to undertake full modernisation of the Northern line following the modernisation of the Central line which is currently under way.

  M1-M62 Link Road
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will carry out an integrated transport study before making a decision to proceed with either of the proposed routes for the M1-M62 link road; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. The proposed M1-M62 link road is designed to overcome road traffic problems which already exist.

  Roads (South-east Essex)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to assist Essex county council to bring forward funding for road projects in south-east Essex; and if he will visit the area to assess the need for himself.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I shall give careful consideration to any proposals which the county may wish to make as part of their bid for transport supplementary grant and credit approvals for capital spending on local roads in 1993–94.

  I have no plans at present to visit south-east Essex. There are regular meetings between Department of Transport officials and officers of the county council, and the Department is kept well informed about the county's needs.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the annual rate of death and serious injury on the roads for each quarter from 1986 and show index figures, using the latest quarter as 100.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information requested is given in the table.
  73

  Deaths and serious injuries in road accidents: cumulative
  totals for 4 quarters ending in each quarter: Great Britain: 1986 to 1991

  Casualties:

  4 quarter totals

  Index 1991 Q4 = 100

  Year ending

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Killed seriously injured

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Killed seriously injured

  1986

  Q1

  5,255

  71,315

  76,570

  116

  138

  137

  Q2

  5,280

  70,440

  75,720

  117

  137

  135

  Q3

  5,298

  68,815

  74,113

  117

  134

  132

  Q4

  5,382

  68,752

  74,134

  119

  134

  132

  1987

  Q1

  5,271

  66,909

  72,180

  117

  130

  129

  Q2

  5,282

  66,638

  71,920

  117

  129

  128

  Q3

  5,300

  66,464

  71,764

  117

  129

  128

  Q4

  5,125

  64,293

  69,418

  113

  125

  124

  1988

  Q1

  5,179

  66,321

  71,500

  115

  129

  128

  Q2

  5,113

  65,136

  70,249

  113

  126

  125

  Q3

  5,000

  64,047

  69,047

  111

  124

  123

  Q4

  5,052

  63,491

  68,543

  112

  123

  122

  1989

  Q1

  5,180

  63,053

  68,233

  115

  122

  122

  Q2

  5,189

  63,311

  68,500

  115

  123

  122

  Q3

  5,315

  63,092

  68,407

  118

  123

  122

  Q4

  5,373

  63,158

  68,531

  119

  123

  122

  1990

  Q1

  5,419

  63,299

  68,718

  120

  123

  123

  Q2

  5,487

  62,738

  68,225

  121

  122

  122

  Q3

  5,332

  61,943

  67,275

  118

  120

  120

  Q4

  5,217

  60,441

  65,658

  115

  117

  117

  1991

  1Q1

  4,901

  57,445

  62,346

  108

  112

  111

  1Q2

  4,681

  55,524

  60,205

  104

  108

  107

  1Q3

  4,598

  53,334

  57,932

  102

  104

  103

  1Q4

  4,520

  51,499

  56,019

  100

  100

  100

  1 Provisional estimate.

  A664-M6 Junction
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision following the most recent public inquiry into the junction of the A664 with the M66.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The inspector's report is expected shortly. I shall make an announcement as soon as I have considered it.

  Wheel Clamping (Newham)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will discuss with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis the designation of High street north, Katherine road, Green street and Upton lane in the London borough of Newham as streets for wheel clamping for unlawfully parked vehicles.

  Mr. Norris
  It is for local highway authorities to apply to the Secretary of State to authorise wheelclamping in their area. The police would then be consulted. No such application has been received from the London borough of Newham.

  Transport and Works Act 1992
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the regulations governing major transport projects under the Transport and Works Act 1992; and when guidelines affecting the new procedures might be made available.

  Mr. Freeman
  A draft of the rules to govern applications for, and objections to, orders was issued on 2 January. A revised draft will be circulated for comment in 74
  the next two to three weeks. A draft of the rules on procedures for public inquiries will be published shortly. We shall consult on the administrative guidelines when the application and inquiries' rules have been settled in principle.

  Emergency Telephones (A 12)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a date during 1992–93 has yet been established for the installation of emergency telephones on the Al2; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Detailed design work for the installation of emergency telephones on the A 12 Chelmsford bypass is currently being carried out. Once the design has been finalised the programme for installation will be drawn up. Only then will a specific date for completion be available.

  Funds have been set aside for completion of the work in this financial year.

  British International Helicopters
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will carry out an inquiry in his Department to assess the role of the Department at the time when the late Robert Maxwell acquired British International Helicopters; and if he will make a statement about what he now intends to do to help British International Helicopters staff.

  Mr. Norris
  I see no need for an inquiry. British International Helicopters—BIH—formerly British Airways Helicopters Limited—BAHL—a subsidiary of
  75
  British Airways, was sold in September 1986. The decision to sell BAHL and the details of the negotiations were commercial matters for the British Airways Board.

  British International Helicopters is presently in joint administration and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on how the administrator is pursuing his responsibilities.

  Wye River Bridge
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect on road accident figures was recorded following the introduction of speed calming humps on the M4 approach to the Wye river bridge.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  These rumble strips, which were not humps, were installed as part of a comprehensive scheme of traffic management during the strengthening and resurfacing work on the Severn crossing. It is not possible to say what effect they alone had on the accident rate.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the mid-1991 estimates by the Register-General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years for each district council area and parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland, together in each case with the 1992 electoral registration figures.

  Mr. Hanley
  Estimates of those aged 17 years and over, and of those aged 16, are not available in the form requested. The 1992 electoral registration figures, however, are as follows:

  United Kingdom Parliamentary Constituency Totals for 1992

  Total

  Belfast East

  53,375

  Belfast North

  55,587

  Belfast South

  52,556

  Belfast West

  55,280

  East Antrim

  63,739

  East Londonderry

  76,912

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  71,472

  Foyle

  75,970

  Lagan Valley

  73,688

  Mid Ulster

  70,410

  Newry and Armagh

  68,716

  North Antrim

  70,217

  North Down

  69,604

  Strangford

  69,855

  South Antrim

  68,292

  South Down

  77,371

  Upper Bann

  68,422

  Total

  1,141,466

  (ii) Northern Ireland district council totals for 1992

  Total

  Derry

  63,309

  Limavady

  19,282

  Coleraine

  37,138

  Ballymoney

  17,610

  Moyle

  10,509

  Larne

  22,318

  Ballymena

  42,091

  76

  Total

  Magherafelt

  25,611

  Cookstown

  21,637

  Strabane

  25,319

  Omagh

  30,973

  Fermanagh

  39,112

  Dungannon

  32,354

  Craigavon

  54,520

  Armagh

  36,222

  Newry and Mourne

  58,207

  Banbridge

  24,891

  Down

  40,656

  Lisburn

  69,472

  Antrim

  30,227

  Newtownabbey

  55,155

  Carrickfergus

  24,527

  North Down

  54,464

  Ards

  49,089

  Castlereagh

  47,505

  Belfast

  209,126

  Total

  1,141,324

  Voting
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what forms he holds information on the numbers of postal, proxy and expatriate votes issued and used during the 1987 and 1992 general elections.

  Mr. Hanley
  The chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland holds information, defined by parliamentary constituency, on the number of postal votes issued and the number of postal votes returned. He also records the number of proxies appointed and the number of overseas voters registered but not the number of proxy or overseas votes cast.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Department are members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested in respect of grades 1 to 7 in the Treasury is shown in the table. Ethnic origin data is held for 87 per cent. of Treasury staff and of this total 8 per cent. are from ethnic minorities. Figures reflect the position as at 1 January 1992 and are for non-industrials only, including agency staff.

  Ethnic minorities

  Grade

  Number

  Per cent.

  1 and 1A

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  7

  2

  1

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at Her Majesty's Treasury and other departments within his responsibility.

  Mr. Nelson
  Recruitment to senior grades of the civil service is undertaken by the Recruitment and Assessment
  77
  Services agency on behalf of the Civil Service Commissioners. Various steps have been taken by these bodies and by the Chancellor's departments to aid recruitment of members of ethnic minorities including increasing contacts with minority communities including image-building publicity in the ethnic minority press; extending links with polytechnics, universities and tertiary colleges to attract a wider range of applicants generally and specifically from ethnic minority communities; increasing representation of ethnic minorities among career liaison staff and on selection panels; ensuring that recruitment brochures reflect a multi-racial work force; organising equal opportunities training for those involved in selection; and using validated selection procedures to ensure that selection is fair and non-discriminatory.

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

  Mr. Nelson
  A survey of members of Treasury staff for whom no ethnic origins information was held was undertaken in December 1990. The total proportion of Treasury staff for whom ethnic origin data is held now stands at 87 per cent. Consideration is being given to whether a further survey should be conducted to try and increase the coverage of the Department's ethnic origin database.

  Foreign Vessels (Crews)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the number of(a) Spanish and (b) Dutch vessels registered as British whose skippers and crews pay income tax and national insurance contributions in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will remove VAT from sanitary towels and other related products;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the maintenance of VAT on sanitary towels and other related protection.

  Sir John Cope
  VAT was designed as a broad-based tax on consumer expenditure, including many essential goods and services, and reliefs have to be firmly restricted. In any event, EC VAT law prohibits the introduction of any new zero rates.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of investment in manufacturing industry in 1979; and what it is currently.

  Mr. Portillo
  Estimates of manufacturing investment at constant prices may be obtained from the CSO database which is accessible through the House of Commons Library.

  GDP
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the current share of Government spending in gross domestic product;

  (2) if he will set out the share of Government spending in gross domestic product in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for general Government—central Government plus local authorities—total expenditure on goods and services as a percentage of the expenditure-based measure of gross domestic product, both at current market prices, from 1978 to 1991, are given in the table.

  Year

  Percentage

  1978

  22·5

  1979

  22·2

  1980

  23·5

  1981

  23·4

  1982

  23·2

  1983

  23·5

  1984

  23·6

  1985

  22·8

  1986

  22·6

  1987

  22·0

  1988

  21·0

  1989

  21·2

  1990

  22·3

  1991

  22·3

  Figures for financial years for the ratio of general Government expenditure excluding privatisation proceeds to gross domestic product were set out in the 1992–93 "Financial Statement and Budget Report", table 2A.1.

  Public Sector Expenditure
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps will be taken to reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector as outlined in the Queen's Speech; and what services are targeted for reduction.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 11 May 1992]: Decisions on public spending plans for the next three years will be announced, in the usual way, in the autumn statement.

  EC Treaties
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what date is laid down in the time limit contained in article 7a of the treaty of Rome referred to in the revised article 99 in paragraph 20 of article G of the treaty of European union.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 11 May 1992]: The date specified is 31 December 1992.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the significance of the reference to article 7a in the revised article 99 under paragraph 20 of article G of the Maastricht treaty; and which articles of the treaty of Rome are amended by the provision.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 11 May 1992]: Article 7a is article 8a of the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act as it is proposed to be renumbered by the Maastricht treaty. A consequence of this proposed renumbering is that the reference to article 8a in article 99

  79
  of the treaty of Rome also needs to be changed. The change is therefore one of numbering with no further practical significance.

  It does not amend any other articles of the treaty of Rome.

  EC Co-operative Statute
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the organisations he has consulted to date on the draft European co-operative statute adopted by the European Commission in December 1991.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 11 May 1992]: No consultation document has yet been issued by the Treasury and Registry of Friendly Societies will shortly be producing one as part of a formal consultation exercise. The intention is to seek views from a wide range of interested parties.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has received to date on the draft European co-operative statute.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 11 May 1992]: I have so far received submissions and views from a variety of organisations. A formal consultation exercise is due to begin shortly, which will seek the views of a wide range of interested parties.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the publication of letters from chief executives of "next steps" agencies in reply to parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Newton
  Following the announcement by my predecessor on 27 November 1991,Official Report, column 552, the Government submitted proposals to the House authorities for publishing replies from agency chief executives. The Administration Committee considered the Government's proposals in March and decided to seek further advice from the relevant House authorities. The Government hope that the House will take an early decision on the matter once the House Committees are reconstituted.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to reply to the third report of the Procedure Committee, session 1990–91, HC 178, on parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Newton
  I am considering the report and will reply in due course.

EMPLOYMENT

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

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The survey of the ethnic origin of staff which took place in 1986 is continuously updated to take account of those entering and leaving the Department.
  80
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in her Departments are members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  At 1 April 1992 there were no employees who classified themselves as being of ethnic minority origin in grades 1–6. At the same date there were 9—0.9 per cent.—at grade 7, and 3,607—6.4 per cent.—in the Department as a whole, who classified themselves as being of ethnic minority origin.

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

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Senior grades are recruited by the Recruitment and Assessment Services agency on behalf of the Civil Service Commissioners. The agency has taken a number of steps to aid recruitment from the ethnic minorities. The Department has implemented equal opportunities programmes which focus on the need to increase the representation of ethnic minorities, and women and people with disabilities. It also encourages applications from the ethnic minorities for its management trainee scheme and has run pre-recruitment training.

HEALTH

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner practices in the Dacorum borough council area are now fund holders.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am informed by the chairman of North West Thames regional health authority that there are six GP fundholders in the Dacorum council area.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family doctors are interested in managing their own funds from April 1993; what was the comparable number for April 1992; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Just over 3,150 GPs are currently fund holders: a further 3,450 have expressed an interest in joining the scheme from April 1993, which would mean that one in four patients will then enjoy the benefits it brings. This is a massive vote of confidence in the scheme.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to meet the British Medical Association to discuss practice budgets; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Ministers regularly meet the BMA to discuss matters of mutual interest. We have no specific plans to discuss practice budgets.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she proposes to introduce any upper limit on the collective purchasing power of fund-holding general practitioners in individual health districts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  London Ambulance Service
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next plans to meet the head of the London Ambulance service.
  81
  Mr. Sackville
  I expect to have regular meetings with the chairman of South West Thames regional health authority and the chairman of the London Ambulance Service.

  NHS Trust Hospitals
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the progress of national health service trust hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of 156 NHS trusts are currently operational. A total of 123 applications have so far been received from hospitals and other units to become operational from April 1993. The first wave of NHS trusts are already demonstrating benefits to patients and we see trusts as the management model of the future.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Her Majesty's Government intend to implement the community care section of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We set out the timetable for implementing our community care reforms in 1990. Many of them have already been achieved. We are on course to achieve the remainder by April 1993.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the implementation of Her Majesty's Government's proposals for community care.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We set out the timetable for implementing our community care reforms in 1990. Many of them have already been achieved. Local authorities introduced arm's length inspection units and complaints procedures in 1991. At the same time we introduced the mental illness specific grant which will support £43 million of expenditure this year and the alcohol and drugs specific grant which supports £3 million of expenditure this year. Virtually all authorities have published their first community care plans this April as required under the 1990 Act. We are on course to implement the remainder of our reforms by April 1993.

  Patient Statistics
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of patients on each general practitioner's list(a) in 1978 and (b) in 1990; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  At 1 October 1978, the average number of patients on general medical practitioner lists in England was 2,312, and at 1 October 1990 this had reduced by 16 per cent. to 1,942. The average list size in England has continued to fall, and at 1 October 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, it stood at 1,887.

  Health Care
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to increase patient involvement in decisions on future patterns of health care.

  Mr. Sackville
  We published a paper entitled "Local Voices" in January this year with practical guidance to 82
  health authorities about ways for involving local people in shaping health services and have written to health authority chairmen to reinforce the important role of community health councils in representing patients' interests. The patients' charter, which sets out clearly people's rights under the National Health Service, reinforces the onus on health authorities to be responsive to patient's views.

  Health Inequalities
  Mr. Michael O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to reduce inequalities in health between both regions and social classes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  With a reformed and better-resourced health service, we are improving the identification of need and the delivery of its services so that they are more responsive to variations in health. Our forthcoming health strategy will extend to wider influences on health and lead to practicable initiatives which are sensitive to those variations.

  Cancer
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the correlation between people living close to electricity pylons and the incidence of cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Radiological Protection Board's advisory group reported on electromagnetic fields and the risk of cancer at the end of March this year. It concluded that there is no firm evidence of a carcinogenic hazard from the normal levels of power frequency electromagnetic fields to which people are exposed. The report will be referred to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment.

  Bolingbroke Hospital
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will visit Bolingbroke hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to visit Bolingbroke Hospital, but we do congratulate the management of the hospital on its enterprising and imaginative response to raising the quality of services for patients.

  Families
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how she proposes to bring the family perspective and family life cycle into social and economic policy making.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government recognise the importance of the family both in terms of its individual members and as providing the best environment for the upbringing of children. The objective of our policies is to advise, help and support families rather than to replace their traditional role with professional services. In health, the Government fully support and are implementing the EC recommendation on childcare whose focus includes leave arrangements for working parents and the equitable sharing of parental responsibilities. The NHS has taken a leading role in implementing "Opportunity 2000" which will increase the quality and extent of women's participation in the
  83
  workplace and the Department of Health is considering with voluntary organisations ways in which the United Nations International Year of the Family in 1994 might be marked in the United Kingdom.

  Health Service Contracts
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will outlaw clauses in health service contracts which prevent national health service staff speaking out on matters of professional and public concern.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Contracts of employment for NHS staff are a matter for negotiation between the employing authority and its employees. Where such contracts include provisions on confidentiality, I understand these are intended to safeguard the confidentiality of sensitive data, such as personal data about individual patients, and not to inhibit expression, through proper channels, of professional opinion about health service issues.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there are any plans to introduce pen injection systems on general practitioner prescriptions for people with diabetes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The addition of insulin pen systems to the list of items GPs may prescribe is the subject of continuing negotiations with manufacturers. New additions to the prescribable list must be subject to the availability of resources and decisions on other competing priorities.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  Recruitment for most established appointments at senior level is undertaken by the Recruitment and Assessment Services agency, which follows initiatives to aid the recruitment of members of ethnic minorities. The Department supports these initiatives when carrying out recruitment at all, including senior, levels.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in her Department are members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Grade

  Total staff1(Numbers)

  Ethnic Number

  Minority2 Per cent.

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  7

  —

  —

  3

  26

  —

  —

  4 and equivalents

  24

  —

  —

  5 and equivalents

  163

  9

  5·5

  6 and equivalents

  86

  4

  4·7

  7 and equivalents

  504

  18

  3·6

  All grades (including 1–7)

  4,516

  539

  15·0

  Notes:

  1Based on Department's payroll figures as at 3 February 1992

  84
  —latest figures available, which include NHS Estates and Medicines Control Agency.

  2Based on response to Department's Ethnic Origin Survey.

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

  Mr. Sackville
  The last survey of the ethnic origins of members of the Department was conducted during June and July 1991. A further survey is planned for later this year.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for the past 20 years the information she has for each EC country on the rates of tobacco consumption, the proportions of smokers and the date of any ban on advertising of tobacco.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. Information on tobacco consumption and on advertising restrictions in OECD countries is contained in an article published in the "British Journal of Addiction"—1991—86, 1343–1354 and some data on smoking prevalence in EC member states is in an article in the British Medical Journal, volume 304, pages 370–72. Copies of these journals are available in the Library.

  Solvent Abuse Exhibition
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the work of Resolve in combating the problem of solvent abuse to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, I understand that arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 15 to 19 June 1992. I welcome the opportunity this will give to raise awareness of solvent misuse issues.

  Asthma Inhalers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue an approval for the use of recycled chlorofluorocarbons in asthma inhalers and preparation of other medicinal products; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Approval for the sale or supply of any medicinal product in the United Kingdom is given following an application which satisfies the Licensing Authority in respect of safety, quality and efficacy as laid down in the Medicines Act; an application for a medicinal product containing recycled chlorofluorocarbons would therefore be subject to those criteria.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the mid-1991 estimates by the Registrar-General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years for each district council area and parliamentary constituency in England and Wales, together in each case with the 1992 electoral registration figures.
  85
  Mr. Sackville
  Mid-year population estimates are prepared by OPCS for local authority areas but not for parliamentary constituencies. Preliminary estimates relating to mid-1991 taking account of initial 1991 census results will be published in October 1992. The 1992 electorate figures have already been published for parliamentary constituencies and local authority areas, in OPCS Monitors EL 92/1 and EL 92/2 respectively. Copies of both Monitors are available in the Library.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government plan to spend on the NHS in 1992–93; and what was the amount in(a) 1978–79, (b)1986–87 and (c) in 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  Gross NHS expenditure in England is planned to be £28.9 (27.6) billion in 1992–93. Gross NHS expenditure in England was £6.5 (6.3) billion in 1978–79, £16.0 (£15.2) billion in 1986–87 and £26–6 (25.2) billion in 1991–92 (net figures shown in brackets).

  This represents a real terms increase in gross spending of 56.9 per cent. since 1978–79.

  Dentists
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the remuneration of NHS dentists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  For 1992–93 the target average net income of general dental practitioners is £35,815, an increase in real terms of 33 per cent. over the figure for 1979–80. In 1990–91 nearly a fifth of dentists who did any NHS work earned from the NHS more than £100,000 gross, that is including all expenses. In the same year, expenditure on the general dental service in England alone exceeded £.1 billion; an increase of 43 per cent. in real terms since 1979.

  The proposed increase in target net income of 8.5 per cent. which was recommended by the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body for 1992–93 was accepted in full by the Government. In the normal way, the Health Departments then consulted the general dental services committee—GDSC—about the fees needed to deliver this level of net income. Following discussions between the GDSC and the Health Departments, agreement was reached to hold a joint inquiry to review the level of payments to dentists in 1991–92, the results of which will be considered by the Health Departments and the GDSC later this month when they reconsider the appropriate fee scale for 1992–93. Work on the inquiry is continuing. Simultaneously, they will begin a more fundamental review of the structure of dentists' remuneration.

  Audit Standards
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to ensure the adequacy of internal NHS audit standards following the division of many health authority audit teams arising from the formation of trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  All health authorities are required to comply with the minimum standards for internal audit laid down in volume 1 of the NHS internal audit manual. The objectives and scope of internal audit in NHS trusts are based on these standards.
  86
  Internal audit services are provided by a variety of methods, including in house staff, consortia arrangements, or under contract with other public authorities or external firms of auditors. It is a matter for authorities and NHS trusts to determine how internal audit services should be provided to ensure compliance with the minimum standards. Each year external auditors review the provision of internal audit services in all NHS bodies and form a view on their overall effectiveness. Where external auditors are dissatisfied with internal audit provisions, they will formally report their findings to my right h on. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances health authorities are required to accept responsibility for the long-term or short-term care of people with learning disabilities.

  Mr. Yeo
  The role of the national health service in meeting the long and short term health care needs of people with learning disabilities is set out in the statement of Government policy made by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, at the MENCAP conference in June 1991, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  In the transition to community-based services health authorities have a continuing responsibility for residents of mental handicap hospitals and others for whom they have been providing social care. Changes in the current pattern of provision of services should be made only as part of an agreed strategy between the relevant health and local authorities.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken recently by her Department into the adequacy of day-care provision for adults with learning disabilities.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department's social services inspectorate carried out a national inspection of local authority clay services for people with learning disabilities and a copy of their report "Individuals Programmes and Plans" was published in 1989. It is available in the Library.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to develop a wider diversity in provisions for elderly people in need of care.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are taking forward a wide range of measures to encourage independent living in the community, and to minimise in-patient stays, consistent with high quality care. We are committed to the full implementation of community care from April 1993, and are putting in an extra £6 million starting in the current year to boost domiciliary care schemes and provide further help for carers.

  Measles
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths from measles occurred in 1991 or the most recent year available.

  Mr. Yeo
  In 1990 and 1991, for the first time since records began in the 1940s, there were no reports of deaths from acute measles-related illness in England and Wales.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Guinness and Blue Arrow
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the Guinness and Blue Arrow reports.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In the Guinness case, the inspectors have submitted an interim report. This has not been published because of the possibility of prejudice to the criminal proceedings. The inspectors will submit their final report following the conclusion of these proceedings. Consideration of publication of that report must await its receipt.

  In the Blue Arrow case, publication of the report was deferred in the light of representations which were received. My right hon. Friend intends to publish the report as soon as he considers it appropriate to do so.

  Beer Orders
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the operation of the beer orders.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading has been asked to review the beer orders in late 1993-early 1994 when the effectiveness of the requirement that the national brewers release pubs from ties can be fully assessed.

  Teleworking
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support his Department has given in the past to encourage teleworking and telecottages; and if he will make a statement on his plans for any future policy initiatives in this area.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Teleworking, telecottages and home-working have attracted widespread interest in the idea that information technology can enable people to work from remote rural locations.

  The DTI has supported a number of research programmes studying the technology, management and human factors related to teleworking. As part of its own alternative working strategy the DTI has run a small project involving staff working from home.

  EC (Exchange of Officials)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future participation of British officials such as environmental health and trading standards officers in the European action plan for the exchange of officials engaged in the enforcement of Community legislation required to build the single market as set out in the Official Report, column 269, of 20 November 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom supports the proposal, which is expected to be agreed at the 14 May internal market council, for an exchange scheme between member states of officials responsible for enforcing internal market legislation. Exchanges, each of two months duration in principle, are due to start in 1993, with the aim of increasing co-operation and confidence between national administrations, helping to ensure that 88
  Community legislation is applied uniformly in member states. Exchanges between member states should rise to a total of some 500 a year during the five-year programme and United Kingdom employers in national, regional or local government and the private sector, will be encouraged to support such exchanges in both directions. Nominations for participation, incoming and outgoing, will be co-ordinated by the office of the Minister for the Civil Service.

  Manufacturing Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the deficit or surplus in manufacturing trade in volume terms and increase or decrease in value terms between the United States of America and(a) Britain, (b) Germany and (c) France for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Needham
  The available information is in the table. Data are not available for trade balances in volume terms.

  USAs bilateral trade balance1 in manufactured goods2

  Balance with:

  Balance

  Change in value terms on previous year

  US$billion

  US$billion

  France

  1985

  -3·6

  -1·1

  1986

  -3·3

  0·3

  1987

  -3·4

  -0·2

  1988

  -3·3

  0·2

  1989

  -2·3

  1·0

  1990

  -0·5

  1·8

  Germany

  1985

  -13·0

  -2·8

  1986

  -16·7

  -3·7

  1987

  -17·9

  -1·3

  1988

  -15·1

  2·8

  1989

  -10·4

  4·8

  1990

  -12·0

  -1·6

  United Kingdom

  1985

  -1·3

  -1·8

  1986

  -3·2

  -1·8

  1987

  -2·0

  1·2

  1988

  0·0

  2·0

  1989

  2·0

  2·0

  1990

  2·8

  0·9

  Notes:

  1 Crude trade balance. Exports FOB less imports CIF, at current prices and exchange rates.

  2 Standard International Trade Classification sections 5–8.

  Source:OECD Series C.

  EC/EFTA Meeting
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the issues discussed and decisions taken at the joint meeting of the European Communities and the European Free Trade Association in Oporto on 1 to 2 May.

  Mr. Needham
  On 2 May 1992, the Community, its member states and the members of the European Free Association signed the European economic area agreement together with related bilateral agreements between the Community and EFTA on transit, agriculture and fisheries. The European economic area will extend the principles of the Community's single market to the EFTA countries, eliminating many barriers to trade between the Community and EFTA.

  Nuclear Weapons (Iraq)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requests Her Majesty's Government have received from the United Nations Special Commission to Iraq for information on the involvement of British based or registered firms in the provision of nuclear equipment, or equipment that could assist in the production of nuclear weapons for Iraq.

  Mr. Needham
  No. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency has made a request for such information following the continuing work of its inspectors in Iraq.

  A1 Yamamah Defence Contract
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions officials of his Department or the Export Credits Guarantee Department had meetings with officials of the Defence Export Sales Organisation with regard to the A1 Yamamah II defence contract.

  Mr. Needham
  Officials of the DTI and ECGD from time to time have meetings as necessary with officials of the Defence Export Sales Organisation concerning the A1 Yamamah II defence project. To ascertain the precise number of such meetings would involve disproportionate cost.

  Bank Takeovers
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be informed by the Office of Fair Trading of its views on the possible takeover of Midland bank plc by Lloyds bank plc; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading provides his advice to the President of the Board of Trade on all mergers qualifying for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973 as quickly as possible. It would not be appropriate to comment on when the director general's advice on the possible takeover of Midland Bank plc by Lloyds bank plc is likely to be received or when a decision on that advice can be expected in view of the market sensitive nature of that information.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be informed by the European Commission of the Competition Directorate's views on the proposed takeover of Midland bank plc by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The proposed takeover of Midland bank plc by the Hong Kong and Shanghai bank was notified to the EC Commission under the European Community merger regulation on 23 April. The EC Commission has to announce its decision on whether to clear the merger or open a full-scale investigation into it by 26 May.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the implications for consumer choice and competition within the banking system of a takeover of Midland bank by Lloyds bank; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The President of the Board of Trade will receive comprehensive advice from the Director 90
  General of Fair Trading on all aspects of the possible offer by Lloyds bank for Midland bank which may affect the public interest. It would not be appropriate for the President to reach a view on the implications for consumer choice and competition within the banking system of a merger of the two banks in advance of receiving the director general's advice.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty's Government(a) have made to date and (b) intend to make, to the call made by the French President to halt nuclear testing.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policy on nuclear testing remains unchanged. The United Kingdom has a continuing requirement to sustain a minimum programme of nuclear tests to maintain the effectiveness and safety of our nuclear deterrent.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 12 May.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Inner-city Programmes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Prime Minister which inner-city programmes, currently the responsibility of Departments, other than the Environment Department, will be transferred to the proposed urban regeneration agency.

  The Prime Minister
  The responsibilities of the urban regeneration agency are being finalised. Its primary function will be to bring about the development of vacant and derelict land in urban areas and its responsibilities will reflect this.

  Lockerbie Bombing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the President of the United States the representations made to both of them by the lawyers representing the insurers of Pan American Airways in relation to the Lockerbie bombing; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 May 1992]: I have received no such representations.

  Mirror Group Pensioners
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what further recent representations he has received about the situation of pensioners of Mirror Group newspapers; what reply he is sending; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 May 1992]: I have received a number of representations about the pensioners of Mirror Group newspapers and other Maxwell pension funds. Ministers are keeping in close

  91
  contact with the trustees of the Mirror Group pension schemes and other Maxwell pension funds who are attempting to resolve the ownership of assets and their return to funds. In addition, Ministers have met a number of groups representing the interests of those involved; the most recent meeting being on 6 May. As we stated in our manifesto, we are committed to reviewing the framework of law and regulation within which occupational pension schemes operate.

  If pension funds are unable to protect pensioners' guaranteed minimum pensions, their state pensions will be increased as if they had never left the state earnings-related pension scheme. We have alerted social security offices to make sure that, if necessary, emergency provisions are put into effect to help anyone who needs support from the benefits system because of uncertainty as to their income.

DEFENCE

  A1 Yamamah Contracts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when reviews or audits of brokerage or commission payments to purchasing agents under the A1 Yamamah I and II defence contracts were carried out.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has not employed business agents in connection with A1-Yamamah contracts.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what reviews and audits are carried out into maintenance and service contracts forming part of the A1 Yamamah defence contracts and by whom; and to whom do they report;

  (2) who carried out the audit of payments cleared through the A1 Yamamah I and II defence contracts; how often they reported; and to whom.

  Mr. Aitken
  All my Department's accounts are subject to the normal audit arrangements, the results of which are reported as appropriate. It is not the Government's practice to comment on detailed matters concerning individual defence export sales.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what audits have been carried out of payments made by Westland Helicopters Ltd. under the A1 Yamamah defence contracts; who carried out those audits; and to whom the audit results were reported.

  Mr. Aitken
  Westland Helicopters Ltd. has no contracts under the A1-Yamamah programme.

  Defence Export Sales Organisation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place copies of the internal audit manuals and guidelines used by the Defence Export Sales Organisation in the Library.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Defence Export Services Organisation is subject to internal audit by my Department's directorate of internal audit which works to the Government internal audit manual issued by the Treasury. This document is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there are internal audit teams on the staff of the Defence Export Sales Organisation or specifically allocated to the review of its activities.
  92
  Mr. Aitken
  Internal audit of the Defence Export Services Organisation—DESO—is the responsibility of my Department's directorate of internal audit—DIA. There are no internal audit teams on the staff of the DESO, nor are any DIA staff specifically allocated to the review of the DESO's activities.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place copies of the written guidance on the authorisation of payments by the Defence Export Sales Organisation in the Library.

  Mr. Aitken
  As an integral part of the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Export Services Organisation observes the financial procedures set out in "Government Accounting" in common with all Government Departments. This document is available in the Library of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Bursaries
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has completed his review of the bursaries scheme for non-advanced further education students.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have decided that, as proposed in the White Paper, "Access and Opportunity", the responsibility for bursaries for non-advanced further education students should remain with education authorities. The operation of the scheme will be monitored following the establishment of boards of management of further education colleges at 1 April 1993.

  Fatal Accident Inquiries
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fatal accident inquiries there have been in Scotland in each of the last 10 years for which information is available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of fatal accident inquiries held in each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  Number

  1982

  166

  1983

  161

  1984

  164

  1985

  153

  1986

  154

  1987

  158

  1988

  162

  1989

  136

  1990

  124

  1991

  124

  Procurator Fiscal Service
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current establishment of the procurator fiscal service; how many vacancies there are; and in what grades.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am advised by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that on 8 May 1992 there were 1,080–5 staff in post in the Procurator Fiscal Service. Vacancies currently being filled are 15 in
  93
  legal grades, three in administrative grades and 3.5 in typing grades. When these appointments have been made the establishment of the Procurator Fiscal Service will stand at 1,102.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Severe Hardship Payments
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many unemployed 16 to 17-year-olds received severe hardship payments during the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available(a) in England and Wales and (b) in the London borough of Hillingdon; if he has any proposals to change the mechanism for making such payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  In the year ending March 1992 19,444 unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds in England and Wales received income support under the severe hardship provision. Information about the London borough of Hillingdon could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Last month, the Benefits Agency issued improved and comprehensive guidance to local offices on handling claims from 16 and 17-year-olds which includes a good practices guide. This should improve and streamline the delivery of benefits to 16 and 17-year-olds. We will be monitoring the situation closely.

  Targeting Benefits
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to target benefits on those who are less well off while maintaining the overall size of his Department's budget.

  Mr. Burt
  We will continue our policy to improve and modernise the social security system with sustained emphasis on those groups with the greatest need.

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

  Mr. Burt
  The Department last conducted a full survey in June 1989 by means of a voluntary questionnaire. The data is routinely updated with information on new staff and leavers.

  As part of our commitment to the civil service programme for action on race, the Department, including its executive agencies, has taken steps to improve the response rate to the survey. In February 1992, we completed a resurvey of recent entrants in some parts of the Department. We are considering further action as part of our 1992–93 equal opportunities action plans.

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

  Mr. Burt
  The Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency undertakes the direct recruitment of senior grades 94
  to the Department on behalf of the civil service commissioners. They have taken various steps to aid the recruitment of members of ethnic minorities.

  The Department of Social Security, as an equal opportunities employer, seeks to encourage the employment and career development of members of ethnic minorities.

  Benefit (Training Places)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision is made for benefit entitlement for young people who are unable to take up a training place because of the non-availability of places.

  Mr. Burt
  The Government remain committed to the guarantee of offering all 16 and 17-year-olds a youth training place. However, the most vulnerable groups of young people have entitlement to income support at all times. This includes couples with children, lone parents looking after a child, those people who are registered as blind, those incapable of work or YT because of disability, and carers. For those for whom a YT place cannot be found immediately, financial support is available as follows:

  i. Parents of recent school leavers living at home can claim an extension of child benefit for up to 16 weeks. Those who are estranged from their families can claim income support during the same period.

  ii. Income support is available under the severe hardship provision where a young person would otherwise suffer severe hardship because of the lack of financial support. This applies not only to the homeless, but also to those living independently and to those whose parents may have difficulty supporting them.

  Income Support
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds(a) have entitlement to income support and (b) had an equivalent entitlement in 1983; and what these figures are or were as a percentage of all 16 to 18-year-olds.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the form requested. Entitlement to income support needs to be considered in the light of the Government's increased expenditure on youth training and provision of a greater number of training places. Young people on youth training have underlying entitlement to income support which is not paid in the overwhelming majority of cases because the training allowance is paid at a higher rate. The number of 16 and 17-year-olds on income support and youth training allowances in 1990, the latest year for which information is available, was 365,000, or 25–1 per cent. as opposed to 409,000, or 22.6 per cent. in 1983.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing, by districts, how many and what percentage of income support claimants with mortgage liabilities were in arrears with their mortgage payments, in total and by ranges of amounts of arrears and numbers of monthly instalments unpaid, at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Maxwell Pension Funds
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions have taken place between officials in his Department, representatives of the Maxwell pensioners, and the National Westminster bank, in response to the Social Security Committee's second report of Session 1991–92 on pension funds.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There have been no discussions involving all these parties. We continue to maintain a close interest in developments.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the current position of all pensioners of all the former Maxwell companies; and what steps his Department is taking to help them.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department keeps in close contact with trustees of the Mirror Group and other Maxwell pension schemes who are attempting to resolve the ownership of assets and their return to pension funds. The Government secure pensions to the level of the guaranteed minimum pension, and no pensioner will be worse off than they would have been had they stayed in the state earnings-related pensions scheme. If any pensioner experiences financial difficulty and is unsure about his or her state benefit entitlement, he or she should get in touch with the local social security office, which has been alerted to the difficulties that these pensioners face.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what fees are payable to members of social security appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals; and what are the reasons for any differences.

  Mr. Scott
  The chairmen of social security appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals receive fees of £230 per day. Members of SSATs receive no fees. The fees paid to the medical member of a DAT are £176.80 per day, while the other member receives a fee of £106 per day. Members of DATs receive fees in recognition of the very special expertise required to consider disability appeals.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of people recruited to serve on disability appeal tribunals on the grounds of personal or professional experience of disability by(a) number and percentage of people with disabilities and (b) number and percentage of people without disabilities.

  Mr. Scott
  Responsibility for the recruitment of people to serve as members of disability appeal tribunals lies with the president of the independent tribunal service, his honour Judge Holden, and the hon. Member may wish to contact his office direct to obtain this information.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend the provisions for disregarding tribunal fees in the benefit assessment of members in receipt of severe disablement allowance and invalidity benefit to people in receipt of income support, disability working allowance and invalid care allowance to ensure that people with disabilities and their carers in receipt of either of these benefits are able to serve on disability appeal tribunals without loss of benefit.
  96
  Mr. Scott
  We have no such plans. The fees paid to disability appeal tribunal members are set at a high enough level—about £106 per day—to cover reasonably any reduction in the rate of income support, disability working allowance or invalid care allowance.

  Indexation
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date pensions and other benefits were indexed to prices instead of earnings; and whether this formula now applies to all benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Social Security Act 1980 introduced the principle that certain specified benefits should be uprated in line with prices rather than the higher of earnings or prices. The first uprating to follow this principle was in November 1980. The majority of contributory and disability benefits, including retirement pension, are statutorily uprated each year in line with prices. Most other benefits are reviewed annually in the same uprating.

  Disability Handbook
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the names of organisations that have written to him concerning inaccurate or otherwise misleading information provided in the disability handbook, in particular with reference to the sections on HIV/AIDS and myalgic encephalomyelitis; and what plans he has to amend these or other sections of the handbook.

  Mr. Scott
  Since the disability handbook was published in February 1992, the Department has received correspondence from the Terrence Higgins Trust about the HIV/AIDS section of the handbook and from ME Action Campaign and Westcare about the myalgic encephalomyelitis section. The disability living allowance advisory board provides the Secretary of State with advice about the contents of the handbook, which is kept constantly under review. All representations received will be carefully considered.

  British International Helicopters Ltd.
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the current position of existing and future pensioners of British International Helicopters; and what steps his Department is taking to help them.

  Miss Widdecombe
  British International Helicopters Ltd. current and future pensioners are members of the Mirror Group pension scheme, which is being wound up and is unlikely to have sufficient assets to meet all its liabilities. The Government are keeping in close touch with trustees of all Maxwell pension schemes. The Government secure pensions to the level of the guaranteed minimum pension, and no pensioners will be worse off than they would have been had they stayed in the state earnings-related pensions scheme. If any pensioner experiences financial difficulty and is unsure about his or her state benefit entitlement, he or she should get in touch with the local social security office, which has been alerted to the difficulties these pensioners face.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment has been made of how the Benefits Agency has handled the transition to the introduction of disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Disability living allowance was introduced on 6 April 1992. Transition began in February 1992 and has been a major exercise because the benefit was introduced without phasing providing for claims to be taken to both DLA and the existing benefits—attendance allowance (AA) and mobility allowance (Mob A)—during the transitional period. During this period, claims to AA and Mob A continued at a very high rate and existing beneficiaries were contacted and invited to claim any extra benefit to which they might be entitled. Claims were also encouraged from wholly new claimants. From March 1992 claims for AA and Mob A began to be transferred from the central units in Blackpool to the disability benefit centres, which administer DLA regionally.

  The transition exercise has been accompanied by a wide-ranging publicity campaign designed to promote the new benefit and to reassure existing beneficiaries. This high-profile approach has stimulated a high level of claims at a time when staff are still becoming familiar with the new benefit resulting in longer clearance times. The Benefits Agency is processing these claims as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that those in receipt of an incapacity benefit will not have their incapacity for work questioned on the ground of serving on a disability appeal tribunal.

  Mr. Scott
  Recent amendments to the invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance regulations will ensure that beneficiaries of these two benefits will not have their incapacity for work questioned if they serve on a disability appeal tribunal for one day a week or less.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the BBC select series on the "The Way Ahead," will be resumed; and what further plans he has for publicising the new disability benefits over the next six months.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall be considering proposals for further publicity relating to disability living allowance and disability working allowance in the light of early findings from the monitoring of the introduction of the benefits. As part of this process, we shall decide, after negotiation with the BBC, when further material from the series "The Way Ahead" should be broadcast.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide figures showing the total expenditure by his Department to date on(a) the disability working allowance and (b) the lower rate component, care and mobility, of the disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not currently available.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to carry out ongoing 98
  monitoring of the new disability benefits; if he will give details of what aspects of each benefit will be covered; and whether the results of any such monitoring will be published on a regular basis and made available to the public;

  (2) what research projects into the operation of the new benefits for people with disabilities he is planning to undertake (a) within the Department of Social Security and (b) outside the Department of Social Security; and if he will provide details of the scope and timescale of such research and his Department's own plans for dissemination of the findings.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall be monitoring closely the operation of disability living allowance and disability working allowance in a number of ways. We shall collect regularly a wide range of statistical material for both benefits relating to claims, reviews and appeals. In addition, the chief adjudication officer will monitor decisions made by adjudication officers, and the disability living allowance advisory board will keep the disability handbook under close review. Information obtained from these activities will be readily available.

  We hope also that we shall be able to continue the successful liaison with representatives of organisations who come into contact with, or represent, disabled people so that the causes of any difficulties which they identify in the operation of the new benefits are examined as quickly as possible.

  We are considering what further research, either internal or external, is required in order to establish the extent to which the new benefits achieve the objectives set out in the Command Paper "The Way Ahead".

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to ensure that Department of Social Security visiting officers will always be made available to disability living allowance applicants who require assistance with completing a self-assessment claim form and that claimants who cannot complete a form without such assistance will not be required to undergo medical examination solely on the ground that a visiting officer is not available.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence has been received by his Department of difficulties with respect to self-assessment claim forms for disability living allowance and disability working allowance either(a) by claimants or (b) adjudication officers; and whether he is planning to meet with officials from the Office of the Chief Adjudication Officer to consider the need to make any changes to the wording of claim forms to facilitate accurate and prompt decision-making.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received no evidence of difficulties but over the coming months we will be undertaking a review of the claim packs for both disability living allowance and attendance allowance, with a view to making improvements where necessary. As part of that review, officials will consult not only the central adjudication service but other interested parties, in
  99
  particular, organisations of and for disabled people. The disability working allowance self-assessment disability test form is primarily for use in renewal claims and has, therefore, not yet been used.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of applications received by his Department for the mobility component of the disability living allowance under the new provisions for people who are severely mentally impaired and display severe behavioural problems; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) the number and percentage of these that resulted in an award, (b) the number and percentage that were refused and (c) the number and percentage refused, by grounds for refusal.

  Mr. Scott
  In general, claims for disability living allowance are made for the benefit as a whole, rather than for individual rates of components—although customers may choose to supply details about only one of the two components if they wish. An adjudication officer then determines whether there is entitlement to the benefit and, if so, at which rate or rates. Initial statistical returns indicate that of the claims for disability living allowance decided between 3 February and 30 April 1992 there were 31 awards of the higher rate mobility component on the grounds that the person was severely mentally impaired and displayed severe behavioural problems.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent to date on publicising the new disability benefits; what measurable efficiency targets have been established by his Department; whether he plans to compare the success rates of disability living allowance and disability working allowance applications against such targets or in any other way to evaluate the effectiveness of the publicity; and whether a report will be published and made available to the public.

  Mr. Scott
  To date, the Department has spent £3.77 million, on press and television advertising, leaflets, and the BBC Select television programmes to promote the new disability benefits and the new rules for attendance allowance. Details of further expenditure—including the cost of direct mailings to health professionals and advisers, and of telephone response lines—are not yet available. All television and press advertising includes an evaluation of the coverage of the target audiences. In addition, we are currently conducting customary tracking research to evaluate the effectiveness of the publicity campaign. The results of that research will be used to help us target more effectively any future publicity. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library in due course. Early indications are that the advertising campaign has been highly successful, having generated 295,000 responses so far.

  Uprating date

  Rale of child benefit for eldest eligible child £

  Rate of child benefit for each other child £

  Rate for each child if uprated by earnings since April 19791 £

  April 1979

  4·00

  4·00

  4·00

  November 1980

  4·75

  4·75

  5·35

  November 1981

  5·25

  5·25

  5·95

  November 1982

  5·85

  5·85

  6·45

  November 1983

  6·50

  6·50

  7·05

  November 1984

  6·85

  6·85

  7·40

  November 1985

  7·00

  7·00

  8·05

  July 1986

  7·10

  7·10

  8·50

  April 1987

  7·25

  7·25

  8·90

  April 1988

  7·25

  7·25

  9·60

  Claims (Processing Times)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the Government's target for the average length of time to process claims for(a) mobility allowance, (b) attendance allowance, (c) attendance allowance on grounds of terminal illness, (d) disability living allowance and (e) disability living allowance including a claim for the highest rate of care component on grounds of terminal illness; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if sufficient adjudication officers have been employed during the last three months to handle claims for attendance allowance in order to meet the Government's targets for speed of processing of claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claims for attendance allowance on the ground of terminal illness were received in the first three months of 1992; how many of these claims are still outstanding; what was the average length of time taken to process successful claims; and if he will make a statement; (2) how many claims for attendance allowance were received in the first three months of 1992; how many of these claims are still outstanding; what was the average length of time taken to process successful claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  A total of 164,412 claims for attendance allowance were received in the first three months of this year. The number of these claims made on the ground of terminal illness is not available. On 1 May 1992 there were outstanding 119,930 ordinary attendance allowance claims and 2,428 claims on the grounds of terminal illness.

  The information about average length of clearance times is not available in the form requested.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the value of child benefit for each year since 1979(a) in cash terms and (b) uprated by average earnings.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table:
  101

  Uprating date

  Rate of child benefit for eldest eligible child £

  Rate of child benefit for each other child £

  Rate for each child if uprated by earnings since April 19791 £

  April 1989

  7·25

  7·25

  10·50

  April 1990

  7·25

  7·25

  11·50

  April 1991

  8·25

  7·25

  12·60

  October 1991

  9·25

  7·50

  13·05

  April 1992

  9·65

  7·80

  13·60

  1 Based on the average earnings index (whole economy) seasonally adjusted.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for mobility allowance were received in the first three months of 1992; how many of these claims are still outstanding; what was the average length of time taken to process successful claims; and if he will make a statement.
  102
  Mr. Scott
  In that period, a total of 56,171 claims were received. At the end of March 1992, there were 27,371 claims outstanding, although some of these would have been received prior to January 1992. The average length of time taken to process successful claims was 32.91 days.

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

Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many states have to agree to limit their carbon dioxide emissions before they will apply the deadline of the year 2000 to Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, we are willing to return our carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 if other countries take similar action. We are already taking steps to limit emissions but it would be pointless to impose costs on the UK economy if global action on climate change was not assured. The climate change convention agreed in New York last Saturday requires 50 ratifications to come into force.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions because he did not answer the Question on the Order Paper. When the British Government decided that they would fall in line with other EC governments and reduce emissions o the 1990 level by the year 2000 instead of 2005 they added the proviso that other countries do so. How many countries have to take such action before we are willing to do so? Secondly, the draft convention now agreed in New York merely sets out the aim but is not in any way a binding agreement. Has that in any way varied the stance of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, to answer the first part of the noble Lord's question, we are not interested in a numbers game but in status. Therefore, we are looking for agreement by our major trading competitors and the major developing countries. As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, this is a draft convention and we are still awaiting the final text from the United Nations.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, now that the European Commission's original proposals for a carbon tax have been somewhat watered down, will my noble friend say what role the Government see for such a tax in fulfilling our obligations by the year 2000?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there could be a role for a carbon tax. We are not opposed in principle, but the proposal raises complex issues needing careful consideration before a decision could be taken to introduce such a tax.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House what are the steps to which he referred which the Government are taking?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, for instance, we have encouraged the use of unleaded petrol; we arc introducing catalytic converters on new cars from next year; and we have also introduced the use of sulphur scrubbers at power stations.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people in the environmental and church agencies are thankful for the moral lead which has been given in this matter by the Government? Apart from agreements in writing, will the Government continue to exercise that same moral influence upon the other nations to hasten the time when that comes about?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his words. He has recognised the tremendous leadership which has been given by this Government and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister explain how the Government expect to achieve those targets, given the chronic understaffing which has existed in the environmental health departments for so long and given that the Director of HMIP is at present unhappy about the progress that is being made in various areas? I use as an illustration heavy plant emissions even though I am told from my Back-Benchers that that is the wrong gas. If those targets cannot be reached due to understaffing and lack of control, how do the Government propose to achieve them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, when the commitment is made, the resources will be brought into play. We do not anticipate there being any understaffing in any of the organisations which the noble Baroness mentioned.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of Britain's decision to try to achieve that target by the year 2000 rather than 2005, will the noble Lord indicate whether all Community countries are now at one with that objective? If so, does he envisage that in that situation the Community will play a major role in the forthcoming world conference?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that all Community countries have adopted the text agreed last weekend in New York. It is hopeful that the treaty will be signed when we get to Rio later in June. Perhaps I may emphasise that the signing of the treaty is only the first step. What happens after it has been signed will really count.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I come back to the proviso that we shall only do that provided other countries do the same, and the noble Lord has now added to that proviso our major competitors. Let me ask him a straight question about what he must know is a distinct possibility. If the EC countries agree, as we know they will, to that limitation by the year 2000, but the United States do not agree, as we know they will not, what will be the position of the British

229
Government? Will they go ahead in conjunction with our European partners or will they use the proviso to get out of the commitment because the United States refuses to follow suit?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an entirely hypothetical suggestion. We shall have to see how the situation develops over the course of the next few weeks.

Arbroath Smokies: EC Regulations
2.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the regulations recently issued by the EC Commission on the technique of producing Arbroath smokies are strictly necessary for health or other reasons.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, Directive 91/493 EEC lays down health conditions for the production and placing on the market of fishery products, including the smoking of fish. The conditions are of a general nature and are no more than are necessary to ensure that persons engaged in the smoking of fish offer for sale wholesome products prepared in hygienic conditions. I stress that those conditions are quite compatible with the traditional method of production.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply. Is he aware that those requirements have involved crippling expenditure for the producers, although no ill effects have been observed from the traditional methods used for many years? Will the Government, having defended the British sausage, thanks to my noble friend Lady Trumpington, and defended Scottish mince, ensure that the future of the smoky will not be threatened?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I live five miles outside Arbroath and cannot be unaware of the significance attached to the continuation of the traditional method of production of smokies. I stress to my noble friend that while there may be some expenditure involved, a grant fund of some £100,000 will be made available by Angus District Council and Scottish Enterprise Tayside for the purpose of making sure that the requirements of the regulations can be met. They are not intended to alter the traditional method of production of that great delicacy from Scotland but to ensure that hygienic conditions are properly maintained.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, living as I do only a little further away from Arbroath than does my noble and learned friend, may I ask the Government to point out to the Brussels bureaucrats that smokies are smoked in pairs tied together with string and that the string hangs on the bar over the fire? It makes not the smallest difference whether the bar is made of wood or of metal, as the European Commission wishes. Therefore this is one of the forms of
230
interference in local traditional food by the European Community which brings the Community into the greatest disrepute. Will my noble and learned friend point that out to Brussels?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making so clear that she too knows exactly how smokies are prepared in Arbroath. The point is that neither we nor Brussels in any sense seek to alter the traditional method by which those fish are smoked. What is of concern is the way in which they are hung when being smoked. It is felt that they should be on poles or stays that are corrosion resistant and easy to clean and disinfect. Whether wooden or steel poles (as the environmental health department believes is correct) are used is not a matter that would result in any change to that method. We and Brussels are anxious to ensure that they should be hygienically produced. I hope that the delicacy will continue.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would the Government be prepared to consider the possibility that the increasing flood of regulations of this type is possibly becoming increasingly silly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, obviously the short answer would be the attractive one to give. I am anxious to stress that we are dealing with the hygienic circumstances in which fish are smoked. It is not a directive specifically aimed at the delicacy of the Arbroath smoky. As the noble Baroness indicated, contact of the fish with the poles on which they are smoked is, if at all, minimal. The health department believes that stainless steel poles are preferable but has not ruled out wooden ones. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that while there may be changes the directive is not intended to attack that traditional industry.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the biggest problem about smokies is that far too few people know the correct way to cook them?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there are many ways of preparing smokies. Perhaps I may go into my commercial plug. An Arbroath smoky is an Arbroath smoky, whereas there are abominations which disguise themselves as kippers. I like the kipper as much as the next man, but it is never quite in all the circumstances as genuine as the smoky.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as a general principle should not the Commission confine itself to laying down general requirements of health and leave it to national governments to settle the minutiae? Is not the way in which some of these regulations are interpreted strictly by our health officers causing extreme problems in some small industries?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, this directive lays down general health conditions for the production and placing on the market of fishery products. As the noble Lord appreciates, the enforcement of those regulations will be for those in

231
local government who have the responsibility of ensuring that proper, hygienic standards are maintained.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is an ideal field in which the principle of subsidiarity should be strictly applied?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is a big word in Arbroath! However, I understand entirely the point that my noble and learned friend makes. Provided this and comparable directives lay down general health conditions ensuring that there are hygienic standards maintained throughout the Community, that would appear to me to be appropriate. However, I accept entirely the point that my noble and learned friend makes: that undue interference in the local circumstances of production of such great delicacies is to be resisted.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that by far the best kippers are produced at Craster in Northumberland? Will he give an assurance that these foolish regulations will not destroy that small but useful industry especially as the Government's policy has almost destroyed the inshore fishing industry in Northumberland?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is a big enough problem to deal with the smoky without venturing into the dangerous waters of kippers.
Directive 91/493 lays down general health conditions. We do not address ourselves to more particular matters such as the way that kippers might be smoked. On that issue the noble Lord and myself might find ourselves in great agreement.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, until this directive was published, has the Minister had any representations made through his department from the health authorities as to the carcinogenic aspects of the smoking of kippers in Arbroath? As I understand it, if aluminium poles are used and the huts tiled and closed, men will need to go in with breathing apparatus. Will not the mystique of the Arbroath kipper be lost?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, first there is a misunderstanding in this specialised field. There is no suggestion that aluminium poles should be used. The options are the continuation of the use of traditional wooden poles or stainless steel poles. If wooden poles can be used hygienically there is absolutely no reason why they should not continue to be used.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that in order to supplement the principle of subsidiarity—which is intended to prevent Brussels from meddling in matters that can be dealt with by national governments—we should seek to enshrine in some treaty a new principle of proportionality under which the cost of any directive from Brussels is judged against the benefit that it brings?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may put on my hat as a former law officer. I believe that the
232
principle of proportionality is well enough understood within the European Community. What should be understood about the directive is that it lays down general health conditions for the production and placing on the market of fishery products, including the smoking of fish. That directive would apply from Greece to the north of Scotland.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that these regulations are not yet available in the Printed Paper Office and that regulations emanating from Berlaimont often take a number of weeks to reach the Printed Paper Office? Can anything be done about that?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I cannot immediately answer the noble Lady. However, I shall look into the matter to ensure that such directives are made available as soon as possible.

Energy Efficiency
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which Minister within the Department of the Environment will be responsible for energy efficiency.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer and I wish him well in his new capacity. However, is he aware that when the Department of the Environment initially issued its list of ministerial responsibilities, energy efficiency—which was transferred to that department—was not mentioned? That was a matter of concern to many of us. In view of the imminence of the world environmental discussions to which reference has already been made, when global warming will figure largely on the agenda, will he confirm that the Government will be putting added emphasis on the promotion of energy efficiency as the best known means of limiting the risk of global warming?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes. It was a regrettable omission from the original press release from the DoE that it was not clearly stated that I had responsibility for energy efficiency. However, this Question has raised the opportunity to announce that publicly. The omission does not reduce the interest that I have on the subject.
Secondly, yes, of course we shall be using energy efficiency as one of the major ways to reduce our overall emissions and to help the global warming problem with which we are faced.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister must be aware that the biggest culprit still polluting the atmosphere is our coal-fired power stations. A programme was set in train to install desulphurisation plants. Will the Minister give an undertaking to the House that he will continue to press his fellow Ministers to increase the programme until the problem has been completely dealt with?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry but I believe that that is beyond the scope of the Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister consider that better liaison between industrialists might help his endeavour?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. There must be close co-operation not only with those in industry but also with the citizens of this country.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us regret the apparent demotion of the Department of Energy, especially as it had begun to do a good job under its previous and rightly elevated Secretary of State? Will he assure us that in the department's new location—it is hoped that that will not be at Canary Wharf—the finance allocated to research into, and promotion of, energy efficiency will not be allowed to diminish, as often happens when absorption into a major bureaucracy takes place, but that it will be increased?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this year we have increased expenditure on the Energy Efficiency Office by some 40 per cent. That is a record of which we are extremely proud and no doubt it is one that we shall wish to continue.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that he has lost no time in promoting energy efficiency because only yesterday he launched a large combined heat and power scheme in the City of London?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised that matter. He is quite right.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the Minister becomes too satisfied with the extra money that is being allocated to his department will he look at the past record? In doing so he will see that two or three years ago the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office was drastically reduced and that therefore he is starting from a low base. During his familiarisation period will the Minister also take particular note of the decline in expenditure on energy efficiency in this country during the past five years?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, before the noble Lord becomes too depressed perhaps I may point out that since 1983 the Government have spent more than £190 million on their energy efficiency programme and that that has generated savings worth more than £500 million per year.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is growing disquiet about the abolition of the Department of Energy, which was highly regarded in Whitehall, in Parliament and in the country generally? Will he make plain to the House which department will in future be responsible for producing the energy policy which has been lacking during the past 13 years?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that any disquiet will soon be dispelled as people realise that
234
my department, the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Trade and Industry are serious in taking on the responsibilities of what was a most successful Department of Energy. It will be up to those two departments, in particular the DTI, to produce the generality of our energy policies.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, how will that be done? What plan exists? That has not been made plain to Parliament. It is the responsibility of the noble Lord and his two right honourable friends to explain their future plans for the energy industry.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, these are early days in the new Parliament. No doubt my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Environment and for Trade and Industry will be able to take that point on board.

Airborne Nuclear Missile System
3.3 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to acquire an airborne nuclear missile system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we are continuing to study a range of possible options for the eventual replacement of our WE177 nuclear bombs. No decision has yet been taken.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Can we take it therefore that the Government are not committed to an airborne system and are examining the possibility that Trident might be able to take on a sub-strategic role?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, certainly the noble Lord can rest assured that all options are being carefully examined. When a decision is reached it will have taken into full account all the relevant factors.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the Government are to proceed with such a significant development there must be absolute clarity about the threat which it is intended to meet? Can the Government indicate whether the possibility was costed as part of Options for Change and also enlighten the House about the consultations that have taken place within the NATO alliance to which we are so deeply committed?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the nature of deterrence, as the noble Lord well knows, lies at least in part in the uncertainty of any response to any perceived threat. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in the remarks that he made last week tried to draw attention to what he regarded as unnecessary expenditure. There can be no doubt that any nuclear deterrence must depend on a range of threats and a sub-strategic threat forms part of that. The noble Lord may rest assured that our NATO partners still believe that a sub-strategic deterrent is a desirable part of a deterrent policy.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister really agree that that explanation is satisfactory? Surely this is an immense development in defence. Before embarking upon it we must be certain that there is a real gap which is not being met and not merely the possibility that there might be a gap which is not being met.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, there is a gap. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the possibility that if one relies only on a strategic deterrent then in the event of a less than strategic threat there might be a strong possibility that a strategic threat may be an over-reaction. Therefore, it must be an advantage to have a sub-strategic response in one's arsenal if one relies on a strategic reply.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister recall that, perhaps due to its length, there was no time in last week's debate for him to reply to several questions? Will he be good enough to write to me in reply to a couple of questions which I asked and which appear in cols. 83 and 84 of Hansard? If he will do so and place a copy of his letter in the Library all noble Lords will be greatly enlightened.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of what I already know is an obligation. I hope that he will be happy with the reply that I will be sending to him as swiftly as possible.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the Minister say whom it is he wishes to be uncertain in being deterred by this potential weapon?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord is well known for his extraordinary knowledge and experience in these matters. Perhaps I may divert your Lordships' attention and say that last night I took great pleasure in receiving delivery of his latest publication, which I look forward to reading during the weekend. I remind your Lordships that the Russians have confirmed that they have not retargeted their strategic nuclear forces. Furthermore, I remind the noble Lord that there is a considerable number of potential aggressors worldwide; in particular there are the threats of nuclear proliferation about which all of us have read so much of late.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the Minister, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, appeared to indicate that there was a NATO requirement for a sub-strategic weapon. That implies that some aggressor might not be deterred by the strategic deterrence of the United States, Britain and France, plus the sub-strategic deterrence of France and the United States, but might be deterred if, in addition, there were a British sub-strategic nuclear deterrent. Does he agree that that is quite absurd?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have been greatly struck by the frequent use which the noble Lord makes of words such as "stupid" and "absurd" during the course of his learned observations. One of the basic assumptions of a deterrence policy is that there should be more than one centre of decision. That
236
matter has been basic to the approach of the United Kingdom in considering nuclear deterrent matters. With the greatest respect to our French allies, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord how happy he would be to rely on the decisions of the Elysee for the defence of this Chamber.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, in addition to replying to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will the noble Viscount inform your Lordships' House exactly what is the difference between strategic, sub-strategic and tactical? In asking that question, I hope I shall be allowed to say that the first chief of air staff after the Second World War made one or two addresses to your Lordships' House in which he warned against the attempt to differentiate between tactical and strategic. I have written a certain amount on that subject but I should be grateful to know what strategic and sub-strategic mean.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I do not have much time and I am well aware that the noble Lord asks a question to which he already knows the answer. There has already been an enormous decrease in the number of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of this country and of NATO and that is in recognition of the changed circumstances.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.11 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on 6th May last by the Baroness Carnegy of Lour—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, it is both an honour and a pleasure for me to have the opportunity of opening your Lordships' debate today on the gracious Speech, with particular reference to home and social affairs and education. I follow a number of distinguished contributions to the debate on the gracious Speech. I would like to pay my own tribute to my noble friends Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lord Renfrew, who respectively moved and seconded that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty. My noble friend Lady Carnegy offered us a wide ranging perspective of some of the problems we currently face at home and overseas, as also did my noble friend Lord Renfrew, and we listened particularly to his views on education. I am sure I am not alone in the House in harbouring a slight tinge of regret that my noble friend Lord Renfrew did not speak to us in the uniform of an RAF flying officer. Both speakers drew specific attention to a part of our United Kingdom that is very close to my own heart; namely, Scotland. There is a challenge here for the

237
whole of the United Kingdom and one which is taken very seriously by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
I have also had the pleasure of listening to a number of maiden speeches from noble Lords and would like to assure all our "maidens", of both sexes, that your Lordships will expect no more than a continuation of the high standards they have already set. We look forward to maiden speeches today from my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
Before I begin, I would like to apologise for the fact that I am unable to be present for the whole of the debate. I have an engagement this evening with a professional body in my area of responsibility which I accepted some months ago and which I should like to fulfil. I hope to be present for as much of the debate as I possibly can.
This Government have been returned to office on the basis of a manifesto full of ideas designed to widen choice, extend opportunities and increase a sense of personal responsibility. We live in a rapidly changing world and we must build a society in which our citizens are ready and able to tackle the challenges that lie ahead.
The Government are committed to continuing the fight against crime and the promotion of law and order. The Government recognised public anxiety at some well publicised miscarriages of justice and acted promptly to establish the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in March 1991. A very tight timetable has been set for its deliberations and we expect a report by June 1993. The Government will give very careful consideration to the commission's findings and will not hesitate to introduce any measures which are necessary to improve still further our criminal justice system.
The Government are well aware of the threat posed, especially to our young people, by the trafficking and misuse of drugs. The financial stakes in this deeply abhorrent trade are very high. We propose to bring forward a Bill to strengthen our powers to deal with financial crime, including the strengthening of confiscatory powers against drug traffickers. This Bill will also enable us to implement two important Community directives on money laundering and insider dealing and will extend the power of our courts to deal with international fraudsters.
The Government have made clear their commitment to the provisions of the Asylum Bill that fell at the end of the last Parliament. Legislation on asylum will be reintroduced at an early opportunity. Asylum applications reached 45,000 in 1991. Numbers have dropped back in recent months but remain five times higher than five years ago. Most are not genuine refugees. Additional staff and tighter new procedures have already had an impact but much remains to be done and we cannot afford to relax.
We are determined to secure an asylum system which ensures that genuine refugees are properly protected while minimising the opportunities for abuse. The legislation will play a key part in a package of measures to achieve that goal. The Government
238
have already provided substantial additional resources for determination of asylum applications. The Home Office will be spending some £40 million this year on dealing with asylum applications. The Bill will complete the process of streamlining procedures and will ensure that that money is well spent.
The central provision is a new avenue of appeal in all cases, giving additional protection to genuine refugees and allowing greater speed and finality in decision-making. Strict time limits will minimise delays and allow for the speedy rejection of clearly unfounded cases. In addition, the legislation will provide power to take the fingerprints of all applicants to ensure that they can be properly identified. Many deliberately dispose of their passports and some make several applications in false names as a basis for benefit fraud. The Bill will also limit the duties of local authorities under the homelessness legislation in relation to asylum seekers.
The Government will introduce a Bill to facilitate the work of the parliamentary boundary commissions and ensure that the next general election is fought on up-to-date boundaries. The 1992 general election was fought on constituencies whose boundaries were drawn, for England, on the basis of 1976 electorates, which means that they could be 20 years out of date by the time of the next election. That would be intolerable. Population changes since that date have caused wide disparities in constituency electorates, and in England these now range from just over 42,000 to more than 100,000.
This Bill will set a new statutory timetable for completion of the review in each part of the United Kingdom. Current legislation allows until 1998 to do that, although the commissions already aim to report earlier than that. This Bill will also shorten the interval between reviews. The cause of the present problem is that the commissioners are required to report at intervals of not less than 10 or more than 15 years since their last report. That is too long, and this Bill will shorten the interval to eight to 12 years.
A part of the Government's programme to widen choice and extend opportunities will be to introduce a Bill to establish a national lottery to raise money for good causes. The proceeds of the national lottery will be used to support projects of lasting benefit to the whole nation in the world of sport, the arts, our national heritage, charities and a new Millennium Fund. The potential benefits of a national lottery have been widely welcomed. I am also very personally aware of the fears that have also been expressed about the prospect of a government encouraging gambling and I have considered that point very carefully. Successive governments have taken the view that adults should be free to gamble if they thought it right to do so. The decision whether or not to do so is a matter of personal responsibility which cannot be escaped. The legislation will provide for the lottery to be carefully regulated to ensure that it is honestly and fairly run. Without a lottery of our own there is a risk of increasing expenditure on foreign lotteries in support of projects abroad rather then good causes here at home.

239
A White Paper has been issued setting out initial thoughts on how the lottery might operate and inviting comments on a number of key aspects. The Government will be ready to listen to a wide range of views and to consider proposals on all aspects of its operation before deciding how to take this forward. We hope for a full response during the consultation period on the White Paper.
The Government wish to further choice in the education system. The Government believe that the benefits of self-government enjoyed by grant-maintained schools should be accessible to all maintained primary and secondary schools. A Bill will be introduced in the autumn to extend choice and diversity in education. Details of the Bill will be set out in a White Paper to be published by the end of the summer. It will set out the Government's proposals for the future funding and organisation of grant-maintained schools. The Government will implement their commitment to enable small schools to apply for grant-maintained status in groups. The number of grant-maintained schools is expected to increase significantly over the next few years. The Government's plans will provide for the standards of education to be raised for all schools.
The Government will continue to build a modern National Health Service which is responsive to the needs of patients. I am glad to say that 156 trusts are now established, representing over one third of NHS hospital and community health services. No fewer than 153 hospitals and other units are keen to join next year. Patients are already seeing the benefits in shorter waiting times for appointments, improved facilities and new services. Over 3,000 GPs are now in charge of their own budgets, and many more practices have declared their interest in fund holding. Fund-holders are treating patients more efficiently and winning benefits for their patients, benefits which are spreading to all patients.
The Government will pursue their policies on community care. These aim to help all those who need health and social services in the community to lead as independent a life as possible in their own homes or in a homely setting in the community. Your Lordships will recall that my noble friend Lady Brigstocke introduced a Bill to amend the National Health Service and Community Care Act of 1990 in the last Session. That unfortunately fell in another place. The Government have already reintroduced the Bill in your Lordships' House.
The Patient's Charter has already proved a great success. The charter commitment to treating all patients who have been waiting for over two years by the end of March was all but met. The Government will continue to press forward the charter initiative with a view to reducing waiting lists still further, improving services and heightening quality.
The Government will continue to develop health strategies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Green Paper Health of the Nation published last year was widely welcomed, and over 2,100 responses have been received. A White Paper setting out targets for health gain in a number of areas will be published later this year. Such a strategy, aimed
240
at promoting overall good health rather than treating disease and injury, has been made possible by the changes that this Government have introduced.
Turning to the social security system, the gracious Speech emphasised the Government's commitment to the continued modernisation and improvement of the social security system. We are concerned to ensure that the system focuses especially on those areas where the need is greatest and wide-ranging reforms introduced in 1988 were a significant move in that direction.
The Government are committed to maintaining the success of personal pension policy. Personal pensions have brought real choice into pension provision and since 1988 over 41 million people have set up their own pensions. We aim to ensure that the vast majority of personal pension holders find it advantageous to maintain their pensions and will introduce legislation to provide a new 1 per cent. additional rebate for holders of personal pensions aged 30 and over from April 1993, when the existing incentive ends.
The variety of measures I have referred to are an ample demonstration of the Government's commitment to better the lot of their citizens and to create a framework in which aspirations may be realised and responsibilities recognised and borne, and I commend that goal to your Lordships.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if there must be a Conservative Government—if there must—one of the few consolations which my noble friends and I have is to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor still sitting on the Woolsack. He has graced that position for some years and we are glad to hear him in good voice and in good form. I am sure that we shall enjoy the speeches of the two maiden speakers this afternoon. Having said that, I have finished all my complimentary remarks.
Sheer humanity makes a decision proper; namely, that with 33 speakers to whom your Lordships are expected to listen, I had better concentrate on one subject only out of the three which your Lordships will be debating today. I refer to home affairs and certain legal aspects which may be relevant to those affairs. Others will be speaking about social affairs and education; in particular, my noble friend Lady Blackstone will be addressing education on which she is such an expert.
In 1992 the gracious Speech must be looked at as coming from a government who have been in power for 13 years. It is not a fresh government taking a fresh look at critical problems; it is a government who have had 13 years to look at vital social aspects of our national life, embracing many matters about which citizens are worried. When one looks at the gracious Speech from that point of view it is a little disappointing, if I may use an understatement.
With that in mind I turn to the question of crime, which the noble and learned Lord in his interesting address touched on —if I remember correctly—in but one sentence before going on to consider the aspect of miscarriages of justice. During the 13 years of which I speak, crime in this country more than doubled. In the

241
year 1990–91 it rose between 16 and 17 per cent. Interpol figures indicate that England and Wales had the highest crime rises in the EC between 1980 and 1990.
I turn for a moment to a topic on which the noble and learned Lord did not touch at all; namely, prisons. Another record has been established by the United Kingdom. It has the highest prison population relevant to overall population of any EC country. The rate of recidivism is alarming. There have been 13 years in which to plan and think. There has been the Woolf Report to help in the thinking during recent years. What does the gracious Speech say? It is easy to read it because it is so short:
"Action will be taken to combat crime and promote law and order".
Let the trumpet sound at this world-shaking expression of policy to deal with a critical situation!
I ask the noble and learned Lord and the Government: what action is it to which they refer? Is it to be a joint operation and programme of crime prevention between national and local government and the police that we on these Benches have been urging? Are there to be more policemen on the beat? Will local authorities be financed in order to improve lighting in blocks of flats and to supply caretakers and proper security? Will the Woolf Report recommendations be implemented in the battle against recidivism? Will there be proper education and training in the prisons? At long last will the Government recognise the social conditions which play at least some part in the crime rate? Instead of using empty phrases like "the classless society" will the Government recognise the tragedy and the tragic events which flow from a large section of this nation which is "a workless society?"
What is the Government's policy for dealing with the crisis in our national life both as regards, as I have said, crime and prisons? One tragic aspect of all this is the impact of such social conditions on our youth who supply too much of a proportion of the crime statistics. Will the Government look seriously at a recommendation from NACRO made only a day or so ago? It calls on the Government to see to it that positive action is taken to ensure that more from the ethnic minorities become prison officers and probation officers and indeed join all those trying to deal with our crime and prison situation.
I turn to another matter which the noble and learned Lord dealt with at some length—that is to say, the Asylum Bill, which is to be reintroduced. If only the Government would spend as much time and money enabling local authorities to make the various parts of our land attractive to those who want to come here as they seem to be spending on preventing people coming here, we would be a happier country. Obviously, we on this side of the House recognise that there has to be a limit to immigration and that if one does not supply a sensible, reasonable, and civilised limit one walks into grave problems which I need not detail. This country has been proud over the centuries at having an open door, or a door as open as it could be, to those who ask for political asylum.
242
The Government started off by saying that carriers would have to bear very heavy fines if they carried people to this country who had not got proper papers. Everybody knows that if one is dealing with the countries from which refugees flee the last thing in the world that the refugees will get is proper papers. We had to see that Act passed. Are we also to see a Bill passed without amendment where, as on the last occasion when we saw it, there was no legal aid and appeals had to be made within 48 hours by people who did not even know our language in 99 per cent. of cases? We are told that the Government may have seen the light and that there will be amendments on those scores.
Will there also be amendments to provide in the Bill that we shall not have mandatory fingerprinting of those who seek the freedom and liberty which they have been denied and who have faced torture and persecution? Are we to do what we do to criminals; namely, take fingerprints in every case even when there is no suspicion at all? Are we also to deal with other provisions which seem to lack mercy, again a quality for which this country has been so long renowned? I hope that when the Bill comes before this House we shall again show, in the tradition of this House, a spirit of criticism and of due consideration for those, as I say, who knock at our gates and who have no other gates to turn to.
In one moment of his speech the noble and learned Lord referred to wrongful convictions and very properly talked in terms of the Royal Commission which was announced in March of last year. We are told that it will not be reporting until June 1993. We learnt yesterday of the latest in a series of Court of Appeal decisions, not yet absolutely formalised, recognising that a lady who has been in prison for 18 years and more should never have been sent there. That case is the latest in a history which does not bring credit on the system that we have.
I also have to bring before the House a figure which many Members of this Chamber may not know of. I am told that there are 700 to 800 cases concerning what may well be wrongful convictions which are now in the pipeline. They are not going to reach the Court of Appeal for possibly two years, maybe longer in many instances. I plead with the Government and certainly with the noble and learned Lord. If we have to wait until June 1993 for the report, then debate it and see what legislation we can get as a result of the recommendations of the report, that is too late. We cannot afford that time. Surely something can be done to speed up the hearings and investigations of those cases so that we do not have more injustices as headlines in our newspapers which are then copied by newspapers abroad to, if I may say so, the glory—the undeserved glory—of the IRA.
I turn lastly to the security services and to the question of terrorism. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that the nation has now been informed that MI6 does exist. That announcement has been made and, as a result of the great openness on the part of the Government, we now know who the heads of MI5 and MI6 are. They are to be given some statutory basis. But are they to be made subject to

243
parliamentary accountability? We on these Benches have pleaded for that. I hope that they will be made subject to such accountability. However, there is something more serious than that—a current topic—that your Lordships and the Government will have to consider. I refer to the announcement that MI5 is now to take over from Scotland Yard's Special Branch the headship, if I may call it that, of matters relating to the IRA. Is that a sensible thing to do? I take the liberty of quoting from the editorial in The Times on Saturday, only because the editor puts it much better than I do. The Times stated:
"The demotion of special branch is a mistake. The IRA is a Northern Irish gangster culture whose activities in Britain are, and should he treated as, those of common criminals. The existing directive of MI5 grants to the IRA the glamour of seeking to 'undermine or overthrow democracy'. The IRA is accorded this quasi-political status largely because ministers are fed up with the police and have decided to let MI5 off the leash. Mr. Major's decision is also a crude comment on the better 'class of mind' (or class of person) the MI5 offers to susceptible ministers".
There follows a passage I want to emphasis to your Lordships because it seems to have much wisdom attached to it.
If the civilian police and the judiciary are failing to contain the IRA in Britain, then they should be reformed, not supplanted by an agency used to operating on the outer fringes of legitimacy. Counter-terrorism has done much damage to Britain's reputation for sound justice and human rights, both through 'temporary' emergency powers and through wrongful convictions".
I hope that your Lordships' House will have the opportunity to debate what will be a serious move unless there is the strict accountability for which we on these Benches have always asked in regard to the security services.
If I may, I shall close on a personal note. I am giving a personal view. I have often thought that the neutrality that is such an essential part of our tradition of the monarchy would be preserved and, indeed, enhanced if, at the end of the gracious Speech, Her Majesty would add the words, "My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, this that I have read is what my Government have to say. I now give you, my Lords and Members of the House of Commons, the comments of the Opposition upon what I have just read out." If that had occurred in the Speech which Her Majesty so graciously read out, upon this occasion the Speech would not only have been as gracious as it was, but it would have had a much more intelligent and useful content.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we meet today to pick up the debate that we have conducted during the general election campaign throughout the country. As a result, we have a distinguished and lengthy group of speakers on the subjects that we are discussing. We have already heard a welcome for the return to the Woolsack of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and have heard his exposition. We have also heard the helpful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with almost all of which I agree. We look forward in the course of this debate to hearing two maiden speeches from two very distinguished Members of your Lordships' House.
244
The area that I shall cover will be limited because the subject for today's debate is wide. My noble friend Lord Donaldson will be speaking about a number of subjects, including prisons. My noble friend Lord Holme will be speaking about secrecy and security—about both sides of that particular coin. My noble friend Lord Addington will be speaking about education, and my noble friend Lord Winstanley, will, I imagine, be speaking about everything as he replies to the debate with, I hope, particular reference to housing, which is one of the subjects that I should have liked to tackle but for which I shall not have the time.
I have taken an active part in almost every general election since 1964. Before that my experience was limited to standing on the balcony of an inn in the market square of Aylesbury while my father suggested to the electors that since they had elected him in 1935 by a majority of over 20,000, I might well be their next Conservative Member of Parliament when he finally passed on. That fate was not in store for me, but I have taken a major part in elections since 1964. I do not think that I have ever taken part in an election in which I thought that the issues were so fairly put before the people and where people really did know for what the three parties stood. With the exception of some rather scandalous Conservative advertising, much of which still remains on the billboards so that we can see it and continue to register our dislike of that kind of negative approach to politics, it was also a very fair election.
However, it was also a very middle-class election. The concerns of the 20 per cent. of the population who are poor and unemployed were hardly dealt with. As the advisers who have more and more power over politics say, "There isn't much sex appeal in poverty". I do not except my own party from that stricture. It is true of all the parties. In the past two or three days Church Action on Poverty has published a series of letters to the Prime Minister by several spokesmen of one kind or another, of all parties and of none, who are very concerned about poverty. When I reached the letter from the director of the Catholic Institute for International Relations I came across a passage dealing with constitutional safeguards. He continued:
"You will begin to think I am a crypto-member of the Liberal Democrats. To disabuse you, my second appeal is that you make an absolute priority of tending to the needs of the poorest 10 per cent. of our society".
I was ashamed that there was sufficient truth in that remark that I could not actually refute it out of hand. The Labour Party, I am afraid, also did not live up to its reputation as a defender of the poor. We were all talking about the things which affect the middle classes. We were all talking about mortgages and such like. Very little was said about homelessness.
It is important that in this debate today we mention some of the things which hardly appear in the Queen's Speech. Now that the election is past it is time to put poverty and unemployment forcefully on the agenda. Both the parties on this side of the House have traditionally a great interest and a great tradition in dealing with this matter and standing up for the poor. In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gave prominence to the problem. The Conservative Party,

245
although this has never been one of its major interests, has nevertheless had a tradition of standing up for one nation, for trying to have a society where the rich and poor were bound together, the Disraelian tradition which stems from his novel Sybil. In the Queen's Speech, however, I can see nothing about unemployment; I can see nothing about housing; and there is only one paragraph on social security. So now is the time to start this debate again. My noble friend Lord Russell will be raising the matter in your Lordships' House on 3rd June and I hope that a number of your Lordships will take part in that debate. But it is important that we spell out at this moment some of the major problems which have been dodged.
I draw the attention of the House to the Eighth Report of the Social Security Advisory Committee which some noble Lords will have read. It comes from a distinguished group of persons who have no particular political axe to grind. The committee deals with one of the areas on which I wish to touch—the exclusion of 16 to 17 year-olds from income support. For a non-partisan body, what it has to say is extremely damning and demands a reply from the Government. I gave the Minister notice that I would be raising this matter today. The committee says that it has been told by both local offices and careers service staff in some areas that they viewed the exclusion of 16 to 17 year-olds from income support as not only harsh but unnecessary. No one is in favour of it. The report states:
"We would strongly recommend, yet again, that the DSS reviews the procedures for young people claiming income support and makes changes that will ensure that those who are suffering hardship may claim benefit without having to deal with complicated and, in our view, unnecessary and daunting procedures. In particular, having established hardship, the money should be available immediately and not one or two weeks hence".
That is merely one of the areas which calls out for reform. It is hoped that the rather bland paragraph in the gracious Speech on social security and the hardly more specific remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be interpreted to include that point.
There is a much wider field of poverty to be tackled. There is the whole field which exists in large portions of the country where there is high unemployment, where there is considerable poverty and where there are neglected handicapped minorities—and indeed where they are hardly minorities. Turning again to the publication Dear Prime Minister, I find a contribution from Margaret Nolan. I happen to know Margaret Nolan because we serve together on the executive of Church Action on Poverty, which is one of the few bodies which has on its executive some people who suffer poverty. (It does not entirely rely on professional do-gooders.) She writes about her family. She is a decent, nice and very attractive lady who lives on the Meadow Well Estate in North Shields, an area of considerable poverty. She has five children. She outlines the situation that they all find themselves in. If I may say so without condescension, they have obviously all been extremely well brought up. They
246
have all looked for jobs. The two youngest of both sexes, in spite of having applied for numerous jobs, have been unable to find anything to do. She states:
"My third daughter is 20 years of age and has never had a job since she left school in 1988. She has applied for hundreds but has not been successful yet—she keeps trying".
Two of her children did get jobs in a local factory. The local factory went bust and since then they have not had jobs.
The gracious Speech says nothing about what is happening and what will happen to people in areas of high unemployment. On the housing issue—my noble friend Lord Winstanley will deal with some of these points—it is time that we sent part of the money raised from the sale of council houses back into housing association building and any other form of construction which provides housing for people to rent at reasonable sums. There is an appalling lack of housing for rent. As a result of the gaps we have seen in the gracious Speech there is nothing about those who are leading a terribly deprived life in bed and breakfast hotels. Anyone who has visited such places would not wish our fellow citizens to be so condemned.
In coming to a close—I am aware of the number of very able speakers who are due to speak—I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to Hardship Britain which arrived on my breakfast table this morning from the Child Poverty Action Group. It spells out the problem in the words of the people concerned. I said that one of the problems about the election was that it was a middle-class election. One of the problems of our society is that it excludes the people who really have experience. But at least some of the experience is gathered together in reports such as these. The report quotes a Mrs. Denton as saying:
"You can't go to the adventure playground over there because of the drug users, you can't go over there because of the neighbours, they can't play football in the streets because of the motors, there's nothing left for them … I feel rotten that I'm having to ground them for disobeying us, because they only want to play".
Is that a way to bring up children? The same family is a good example of hardship. Its members suffer from great ill health. However, that does not make them exceptional; it merely means that poverty causes ill health and that ill health in its turn causes more poverty. Two of the four children wet the bed, one has eczema and another asthma, while another has been told to follow a high-fibre diet. They say:
"Josie … was bedwetting and we couldn't afford to put on the immersion heater for a bath in the morning, so she was having a wash down. But she wasn't washing herself properly so they were getting a smell of urine off her".
She was being tormented at school about that. The family cannot afford to change Damian's clothes every day, which has been recommended for his eczema, nor to give Josie her high-fibre diet.
That is not the kind of thing that should be happening in a society such as ours. It is not just the squalor; it is the psychological effect that it has. I think that that can largely be summed up in the chapter in the report called "Poor Relations". When we are looking for those titles which spell out two messages, I believe that that is a very good one. It is, among

247
other things, about the feeling that someone has of being a "poor relation", which was spelled out by another generation before ours.
Such people say that there is no choice: "I hate being on the social, but there is no choice". An extract from the chapter describes how a young couple with two children "felt like a change" one night and wanted to go out and have fish and chips. But,
"that was £6 for supper for the four of us",
so they could not do it. How many of your Lordships would like to contemplate an area of life in which £1.50 per head for a meal for your family was something which could not be afforded, even rarely?
Noble Lords opposite are a bit short of legislative steam. I had a regular General Election speech in which I managed to quote almost entirely from the speeches of Bank-Bench Conservative Peers about Bills which their Government had just introduced. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, spoke on the Education Bill and there was also the scorn that was placed on some parts of the Asylum Bill. If they are running out of steam—and I believe that they are—they have the opportunity to try to knit society together so as to resume some of their old tradition. Some of them say that there is no such thing as a society, but most of them know that there is. Even if there is not, they surely can concentrate on the individuals. It is no answer to say that that should be done merely by looking after our neighbour personally, because there are whole areas like the North West and the North East where everyone is more or less in the same boat.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, pointed out in a recent publication that it is only declining societies that have a major gap between the rich and the poor which is widening all the time. If I understand him rightly, that was what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury was saying just recently in his published remarks about some of the salaries which are paid at the top of our society. It is enormously important that we bind society together and make ourselves into a society in which we can all talk to each other and face each other without shame. That cannot be done unless the Government take this problem by the scruff of the neck and introduce legislation over the next five years—preferably over the next year—to deal with such problems.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, ever since I was admitted to your Lordships' House I have been conscious of a number of similarities between my one-time career as a humble thespian and some of the proceedings that take place in this august Chamber. Not, I hasten to acid, any of the farcical proceedings in which I used to indulge, but the marvellous drama which unfolds here; for example, the pageantry, the costumes, the settings, the customs—indeed the rehearsals which I witnessed last week—and the television lighting that illuminated a very full House which listened with standing room only to the gracious Speech. All those features dredge up, as it were, some long forgotten memories in my psyche.
248
However, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, there are distinct differences. I am told that on this singular occasion I can crave your Lordships' indulgence, which I do with all haste. Such a privilege was certainly never given to me in those far off days at the Whitehall Theatre just a few hundred yards up the road when I faced the critics on the first night. Nor can I remember ever suffering from first night nerves as acutely as I am today, although "first night nerves" is probably a misnomer; perhaps "first matinee nerves" would be more correct.
The time has now come for me to give, as it were, my first performance. I only hope that I may be able to contribute a little from time to time, especially in the fields of disability and the drama. As noble Lords are well aware, any maiden speaker is expected—nay, instructed—to be non-controversial. That, I believe, presents little difficulty in my case, for it is on mental handicap that I wish to speak today. Your Lordships have always been singularly supportive, understanding and constructive in regard to that issue.
Some noble Lords may know that at present I enjoy the privilege of being the chairman of MENCAP, following in the distinguished footsteps of my immediate predecessor, my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, those of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, (who, in any other circumstances, would surely also be described as my noble friend) and the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The latter could well be forgiven for perhaps allowing that to slip his memory as it is now over 30 years since he held that position.
It is therefore beholden upon me, speaking for myself of course and not MENCAP, and also speaking on behalf of thousands of people with a mental handicap, their families and parents, to comment on current issues in as much as they are included or excluded in the gracious Speech. Some of your Lordships may have seen references in the past few days to a debate about terminology. We in MENCAP have thought long and hard about this and have given the phrase "learning disability" equal status with "mental handicap", at a time when we are also considering changing our logo for something more apposite. We are concerned to keep the acronym of MENCAP and the issues of mental handicap on the agenda in terms and with images which are acceptable to those concerned, but which carry weight with those very ready to ignore the issues.
Today, however, we seem to be in the era of "new-speak" when nascent language accompanies the birth of babies born with disabilities. There are those who argue that the educational term "learning difficulty" is "politically correct" and totally acceptable for adults long past their educational span and with disabilities which in no way can be described in such a euphemistic manner. I find such domineering dogma difficult to accept—particularly the phrase "politically correct".
Nevertheless, I can well understand why there is such sensitivity about language. When our Downs Syndrome daughter came into this world on 3rd December 1951 she was described in an official letter from the Ministry of Health —then situated, somewhat quaintly, in Savile Row—no doubt trying,

249
as it is now, to tailor the National Health Service to the nation's needs—in the following way, in a letter which contained nought for our comfort:
"You telephoned me on 8th February about the services available for mentally defective children. I am assuming that the mongol child you referred to will not be capable of education within the education system and will therefore have to be dealt with under the Mental Deficiency Acts.
Two courses are open to you, either to deal with the child on a private basis or to seek the aid of the National Health Service. In case you prefer the former, I enclose a list of private homes which have been approved for the reception of mental defectives. I ought perhaps to mention, however, that like all other institutions for mental defectives most of these homes are not only full but have waiting lists. If you take this course there is no power to help with the cost under the National Health Service and you alone would be responsible for it".
The letter continues in the same vein and concludes:
"I need hardly add that if we can be of any further assistance we shall be pleased to hear from you".
I often wonder whether the private secretary who drafted the letter was aware of the irony of that concluding paragraph.
The dread list attached was couched in terms even more offensive and hurtful. There were references to feeble-minded high-grade imbeciles and to helpless idiots—models of ministerial prose and syntax, no doubt, but I think your Lordships would agree that some change was necessary there. Can you wonder that the Association of Parents of Backward Children had come into force some five years previously, blossoming into the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children in 1955 and the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults in 1981, now known more generally as MENCAP? Prompted, no doubt, by these same parents, successive governments have ensured that many Acts since the early 1950s have obliterated the use of such repugnant language and such abhorrent practices masquerading under the guise of care.
Language changes. I would hope that we are in the business of changing reality, though, rather than just changing how we describe reality. This implies changes in services—changes which are genuine, deep-rooted, permanent and yet flexible. It means that Care in the Community in 1993 would be just that. I am optimistic, but I have to record the real fear of parents that care in the community could be underfunded, understaffed and overwhelmed, leading to discharge from hospital without regard, or movement out of the family home to social conditions not even as good as those which hard pressed parents—often elderly and often alone—can now offer. 1993 could begin to make a real difference to the majority of adults with a mental handicap or learning disability who have always lived in the community. There is much to hope for, but these parental hopes would be more firmly based had it been possible to implement in full the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and to ringfence resources which many believe to be essential. I venture to hope that anti-discrimination legislation might at least be a means of providing greater reassurance and guidelines, welcome though those are.
The gracious Speech does not contain any new
250
guarantees in this. However, it does include a very important statement about individual assessments and plans for care being introduced on time in 1993. For that relief, much thanks. We must also pin our hopes on the Citizen's Charter, which must surely include all the citizens of this United Kingdom and help to influence the way the more vulnerable among them are regarded and supported. The gracious Speech also states that the social security system will continue to improve and modernise. Since social security is at the moment the biggest single source of community care funding, I am glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that there will be sustained emphasis on those groups with the greatest needs.
When I first went to MENCAP as secretary general in 1980 I was very fond of quoting a certain Dr. John Langdon-Down, who gave his name to Down's Syndrome and who voiced these sentiments well over a century ago:
"Today we have to provide the highest possible culture, the best physical, moral and intellectual training, and open out fresh realms of happiness for those who have the strongest claims on our sympathy".
Maybe time and "political correctness" have overtaken the use of such Victorian language, but I am sure that your Lordships would agree that the underlying message should always be uppermost in our thoughts, governing all the relevant legislation which this and any subsequent Parliament chooses to place on the statute book, particularly that opening statement, "Today we have to provide". Such a phrase allows no room for tentative guidelines, for lack of resources, for wishful thinking.
The words "Today we have to provide" are unequivocal. We should always remember them not only today but tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. People with a mental handicap, irrespective of their current label, together with their families and friends, deserve no less.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, we have listened to a remarkable maiden speech from somebody who has achieved a national reputation not just in one field but in two. It falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on behalf of the whole House. He is one of the people most responsible for the revolution that has taken place in public attitudes towards those who were once so harshly described, as he told us, as "mental defectives" but who are now recognised as mentally handicapped—children as well as adults who have learning difficulties.
The noble Lord is accustomed to a wider stage and a far larger audience than most of us in this House. However, it will be the wish of all noble Lords that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, should use his membership of the House—to which we welcome him—in the cause of spreading this message about the need for community care and understanding to an even greater audience than he has done already.
I make no apology for returning today to a subject that the House has made its own—the penalty for Murder and Life Imprisonment. May I remind your Lordships of the chronology? In 1987 and 1988 when a Criminal Justice Bill was before the House powerful

251
criticisms were expressed about the defects which had arisen from the inflexibility of the mandatory sentence for murder and the way in which sentences of life imprisonment were reviewed and release decisions taken.
I recall that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack replied to those debates. It was, I believe, the first Bill on which he spoke for the Government, having shortly before taken up the office which he has continued to hold with such distinction ever since. I remain grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for the sympathetic way in which he received the proposal that this House should set up a Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment to look into the implications of what was clearly a highly unsatisfactory situation. That was done. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who is in his place today, chaired the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment. Other noble Lords who sat on that committee are in the Chamber this afternoon. An exhaustive report was published in 1989, accompanied by two volumes of the evidence which had been taken from a large number of specialised groups by whom the report was generally welcomed.
When the 1990–91 Criminal Justice Bill came before Parliament the Government did not find themselves able to accept either the recommendations on the mandatory life sentence or the procedures for reviewing life sentences. The House took a different view and last year made a number of amendments to the Bill on both those matters. As a concession to your Lordships' House, and to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell, the Government agreed to institute court-like procedures for the review and release of discretionary life sentence prisoners. Provisions to that effect had been added to the Bill in another place when it was returned to your Lordships' House.
The part of the Act which provides new procedures for reviewing discretionary life prisoners—that is, offenders sentenced for serious crimes other than murder—will come into effect on 1st October this year. Procedures generally following the model of the mental health review tribunals are now being worked out. The rules have not yet been published but the shape of the new arrangements is becoming apparent. There will be a panel of three members of the Parole Board, with a circuit judge, or sometimes a High Court judge or a recorder, in the chair. The panel will meet at a prison where a number of discretionary prisoners whose sentences are due for review are located.
The panel will review several cases individually over a period of about two or three days. Each prisoner will be present in person. He will be entitled to legal representation, if he wishes, and in certain instances the Home Office may also be legally represented. There will be full disclosure of reports—a key point. The prisoner will know what is said about him and will have an opportunity to challenge it. Subject to the usual public interest exceptions, such as national
252
security and the prevention of crime, the principle should be, and I believe will be, that anything the board sees the prisoner should see.
At the conclusion of the hearing if the panel, acting on behalf of the board, is satisfied that it is no longer necessary to confine the prisoner for the protection of the public it will direct his release. It will then be the statutory duty of the Secretary of State to release the prisoner on licence. If the board is not so satisfied the prisoner will remain in custody and will be entitled to a further hearing at a specified time.
So far, so good. Although the procedure is not identical in every detail with what the Select Committee recommended, it is close enough to be acceptable, and to be welcomed. It is certainly an improvement on the widely criticised present situation where decisions are reached behind closed doors in the Home Office. But it will apply to some only and not all prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment. Those who receive the mandatory penalty of life on conviction for murder—the largest category—are excluded. After October, therefore, there will be the extraordinary spectacle of two separate systems running in parallel. One will be for the so-called discretionary lifers, which will be more open, and fairer, and will have sufficient judicial characteristics to satisfy the European Convention on Human Rights, and should lead to better informed decisions. The other, for so-called mandatory lifers, will retain the objectionable features of decisions taken by the Executive, in private, in the absence of the prisoner or his legal representative, on grounds that are never disclosed. That cannot be right. Moreover, it is unlikely to endure.
Even the Government seem to be unconvinced by the merits of the arguments put forward from the Front Benches in both Houses. In your Lordships' House, on consideration of the Commons amendments and reasons on the Criminal Justice Bill on 3rd July 1991, the then Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said:
"I am well aware of how often your Lordships have helped shape public opinion and attitudes, and I would not be surprised if at some future date policy on this matter changes as a result of a change in public opinion which this House influenced. I am simply saying that I wonder whether the time for change is now".—[Official Report, 3/7/91; col. 989.]
When the Bill came back for a second time, since your Lordships insisted on some amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said:
"With regard to the debate on mandatory life sentences, I am sure that we have not heard the last of it, and it may be that on maturer reflection, policy will move in the direction which some of your Lordships wish to see".—[Official Report, 23/7/91; col. 652.]
Since then a general election has come and gone. There is a new Home Secretary. There is no evidence that public opinion is hostile to change. On the contrary, media interest has been virtually unanimously favourable. The courts also are continuing to take a close interest in the legality of the existing procedures, which after October will still apply to mandatory life sentence prisoners. Only last week the Court of Appeal gave judgment in two separate cases of life sentence prisoners which had reached the Divisional Court by way of application for judicial

253
review. The first, entitled Doody and others, related to mandatory life sentences; and, the second, a case called Walsh, to discretionary life sentences.
The combined effect of those two cases—both judgments being given by Lord Justice Glidewell—is that a prisoner serving a mandatory life sentence should be given the opportunity to make written representations about the length of his tariff to the Secretary of State before the tariff period is set. To that end, the judicially recommended tariff should be disclosed to the prisoner before he writes his own representation. A prisoner serving a mandatory life sentence is also entitled to be told his tariff period.
The consequence is that a mandatory life prisoner is now in an improved position. He will be entitled to know the judicial view, as well as the tariff determined by the Secretary of State, and he can challenge the Secretary of State's decision by way of judicial review if there are grounds for believing that it is irrational.
I am afraid this is a complicated matter to explain, especially in a general debate of this type, but it is one of some importance. I do not expect the noble Baroness who is to reply to deal with it when she speaks later, but I am confident she will bring these comments to the attention of her right honourable friend, the Home Secretary.
The straightforward solution is to abolish the mandatory penalty of a life sentence for murder. That was what your Lordships decided when we passed amendments to that effect last year. This course would eradicate the false distinction which has grown up, largely for administrative purposes, between mandatory and discretionary imprisonment for life.
As a first step, the new procedures which have been accepted by Parliament in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 for the review of discretionary life sentences ought to be extended without further delay to those who have received the mandatory sentence.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, from these Benches I wish to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on a distinguished and moving speech. I accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that since the debate has a wide remit we should confine ourselves to one subject. The subject which I shall discuss, it will be no surprise to your Lordships to learn, is Scottish devolution. I hope that your Lordships will not regard it as a local matter, of little interest to the United Kingdom.
The question of devolution raises important constitutional issues affecting all regions of the United Kingdom and central government. I was delighted to note that, in the debate in the other place, while the issue was not dealt with in the gracious Speech, the Prime Minister assured the House of Commons that he was taking stock of the issue. I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, (when he is not dealing with Arbroath smokies) will deal with this important subject.
Perhaps I should assure the Government that I accept that there is no easy solution to the problem. It raises important constitutional issues. The matter has
254
existed in Scottish and British politics for a long time—at least half a century. Numerous reports are available and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, will find them useful. The issue raises emotions but it will not be dealt with by slogans and demonstrations: it is a complex matter.
When I am discussing the subject with some of my English friends, they say, "Oh, it's these whingeing Scots again, complaining about their difficulties". I assure your Lordships that there are good reasons for complaint about the relationship between central government and Scottish affairs. We all recall the imposition of the poll tax on Scotland a year before it became operative in England. We recall the long and weary debates in the House when the poll tax for Scotland was discussed when noble Lords became rather impatient. However, it was only when the poll tax with all its implications was given effect in England a year later that people recognised it as an iniquitous piece of legislation.
That kind of thing, that indifference to the situation in Scotland, causes a good deal of resentment and a demand for a greater say in Scottish affairs. On the subject of rating matters, there is a gap between the business rate paid in Scotland and the rates paid in England. I notice that the uniform business rate was mentioned in the gracious Speech, but only in relation to England. According to the Scottish Council, the situation is that the assessment of the rates gap in Scotland is £401 million. The rates gap is the difference between what non-domestic ratepayers will pay in Scotland and what the same subjects would pay if they were located in England and subject to their uniform business rate. This is a disincentive to build factories in Scotland, since one would be more highly rated in an enterprise there than south of the Border.
That is one point. The other point is the lack of regional policy. We used to have great discussions in the House on regional policy and how it was applied in the same way as the Community now uses it to help disadvantaged areas to try to spread prosperity. I have not heard regional policy mentioned for a long time; it does not seem to exist.
An editorial on the last Budget in The Glasgow Herald was headed "The insatiable South-east". It pointed out that:
"the London Docklands Development Corporation is to receive an increase in its direct State funding greater than",
the entire budget for the Scottish Development Agency. I am talking about the increase in expenditure for Canary Wharf and the Docklands area compared with the total amount given for regeneration of industry in Scotland.
These things cause people in Scotland to say, "They don't care about us south of the Border, therefore we must demand a greater say in our own affairs". There are 230,000—nearly a quarter of a million—Scots unemployed at the moment. An even more terrible statistic is that in Scotland one child in five lives in a family which receives income support. This reflects an awful state of large-scale poverty in Scotland. These statistics and facts cause people to say, "Well, they've forgotten about us down in Westminster, we are remote, we're not important".

255
As your Lordships will no doubt recall, an industry that interests me greatly is forestry, which is important to the rural economy. Five years ago we were planting 24,000 hectares per annum against a government target of 30,000 hectares. Today, we are planting between 10,000 and 12,000 hectares. The impact of that on our rural economy is great. In England it does not matter about the forests in the glens of Scotland so long as we can go there for our shooting and our holidays. However, they are important to the people of Scotland. This indifference adds to the great feeling of protest about the present situation.
The Scots sometimes ask, "What can we do about it?" One of the factors that used to influence affairs in Scotland was local government. Local authorities had certain powers. I remember years ago, when I joined the Glasgow City Council, we were responsible for education, health, housing, the environment and so on. Today, that is no longer so. Health is managed by regional health authorities, housing is handled by a national housing authority, the environment is handled by Scottish National Heritage and industrial development is handled by area enterprise boards.
The important distinction between those arrangements and the previous form of local government is that all those bodies are quangos. They are all run by people who have been appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland with no answerability except to the Minister. Power in those areas has been removed from the elected representatives of the people and handed over to quango administrations. Is it any wonder that only 32 per cent. of people voted in the recent local elections in Scotland? Many of the powers and influences which used to affect the lives of people in Scotland have now been diminished and transferred to non-elected people. That is another reason why there is a degree of frustration and serious argument about how to return power to the people.
I believe that Scotland benefits greatly from being part of the Union and that it is a good thing that more than 70 per cent. of the people of Scotland at the last election rejected the idea of independent self-government outside the Union. Nevertheless, more than 70 per cent. of the people voted for a substantial degree of devolution. I am delighted that the Government are recognising this. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, in his place today because he has considerable influence in these matters.
This is not an easy issue. It is tied up with the proposed Scottish parliament and its relationship with local government. It is clear that one cannot have a change in the parliamentary powers in Scotland without considering the whole of local government, and that is a tough issue. It will be necessary to have single-tier authorities, and all sorts of local interests and local loyalties are involved in such a reorganisation. The position in relation to the rights which Scottish MPs would have at Westminster if there were a devolved parliament also arises. There is also the West Lothian question and whether the new body would have powers of taxation.
As I said, these are complicated issues. I should like to assure the Government that people like myself who have some experience of Scottish affairs are desirous
256
of being helpful in solving some of those problems. They will not be solved by slogans and banner waving. It is a serious matter of reorganisation to achieve the best administration, but an administration which will have some accountability and responsibility to the Scottish people.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I must start with an apology to the House and in particular to the noble Baroness because I shall have to leave before the end of the debate. My relative inexperience in the ways of your Lordships' House led me to underestimate the number of noble Lords who would want to speak. That is a great shame because I have listened to the debate with the greatest pleasure and profit, particularly the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I congratulate him on his maiden speech. The mentally handicapped are extremely fortunate to have a champion of his eloquence and stature in this House. Perhaps I may congratulate him personally on transferring the skills of holding an audience so effortlessly from Whitehall to Westminster.
I should like to address myself to the twin subjects of open government and accountable government. I say at the outset that we on these Benches very much welcome the promises of more open government made since the election by the Prime Minister and by his right honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave concerning MI6, the publication of the membership of Cabinet committees, and I trust of Cabinet sub-committees, and the elimination of unnecessary secrecy in government departments. Those are all steps in the right direction.
What should be the final destination of that right direction? I suggest that it should be the full recommendation and acceptance by government, both officials and legislators, that they not only govern on behalf of the citizens of this country but that government ultimately belongs to the citizens of this country. That is a simple notion. It is one which in other democracies would be taken as a constitutional cliché but it has always been one that was difficult for the British state to accept. The British state is unsure whether its legitimacy derives from the top down, from continuity, history and sovereignty, or from the bottom up, from the legitimacy of the support of the people of Britain.
I do not suppose that the Government want to get their horns caught in that particular constitutional thicket. Neither do I, at least not today. However, I ask the Minister to accept the logic of the Government's own rhetoric in relation to the Citizen's Charter. If the Citizen's Charter is to effect a radical change in the culture and attitudes of public servants, whether they be providers of services or administrators, it will be by finally putting paid to paternalism—the sense that the man or woman in Whitehall knows best and that because he or she knows best he or she will therefore act for the best. That culture must be replaced by a keen attentiveness to the real needs and aspirations of those whom the Government serve, by a philosophy of empowerment and enablement.

257
Paternalism means keeping secrets. It means literally keeping secrets from the children. Genuinely open government means no secrets from the citizen while always protecting the citizen's privacy and commercial confidentiality. I say no secrets advisedly because the exceptions made nowadays for national security should be minimal and confined in a general context of accountability. I should like to say a word more about that subject in a moment.
In the wider sphere of government, openness and accountability should go together. Yet the Government, with all the progress—and I acknowledge that it is progress—they are making on the Citizens' Charter still balk at a freedom of information Act. I fear that that is to will the ends of open citizens' government without willing the means. The Government say that we do not need a freedom of information Act. They said in the debate in another place in January that it was unnecessary because of the increasing openness of government.
Perhaps I may give just one example, supplied to me by the Campaign for Freedom of Information, to the contrary. It concerns the Department of Health, Mr. Waldegrave's former department. It is the response of one official who was asked to release comments which had been solicited from health authorities, doctors and others on the Patient's Charter. He said:
"Policy development takes place in such an ad hoc way that I can definitely see no way that those department files can be released. Obviously you are aware of the Official Secrets Act. This binds the Department of Health and all Government officials to keep the contents of all files secret and the Patient's Charter is politically sensitive so access to these files would be particularly sensitive".
All of that, mark you, relates to a measure which was intended ostensibly to enhance patients' rights. I am very glad that Mr. Waldegrave is reported to be trawling through 150 different Acts to delete secrecy clauses, but we shall not have open government without the right of the citizen to seek free disclosure. We should also consider the question of better reporting and accountability for government itself and for other powerful public institutions to go alongside greater openness.
The Next Steps agencies seem to me a very promising development in the evolution of Whitehall. However, I believe that each of them should be required to publish annual objectives as set by their mother departments, together with progress over the past 12 months, set against the previous year's objectives, in a clear and measurable way, very much as a company would put them to its shareholders. If the Next Steps agencies are to be properly accountable, it cannot just be through random parliamentary inquisition but because the whole of their objectives and the performance of their chief executives are open to public scrutiny, review and measure.
With the death of stateism and collectivism, why should not regulators, who will play so much greater a part in our public life, and official watchdogs be given autonomy from Whitehall and have far greater
258
accountability to Parliament as the watchdogs of the public interest rather than, as seems to be the case at the moment, act as a phantom limb of officialdom?
I come to the sensitive area of national security. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, it is good to see the Prime Minister abandoning the pretence that MI6 only exists in the pages of novel writers. It is good to see in the public domain the name of its director, along with that of Stella Rimington of MI5. But the Government should not stop there. Both those services, along with GCHQ, have before them a difficult period of adjustment with the end of communist expansionism.
I am not naive enough to think that some covert intelligence is not still necessary in an uncertain world. I am sure that it is. Some of the means of gathering it will always raise respectable eyebrows. But whatever is done—and I believe its scope should be more limited in the future—can only be justified by the larger public interest. Secret services and secret intelligence and security services can never be justified by the interests of the state, the government of the day or, as has sometimes seemed to be the case, the security services themselves. They can only be justified by the interests of the citizens as a whole. That means at least a general framework of accountability, with proper executive and legislative oversight, approving budgets—by that I mean the full budgets of those services —and an ability to review performance.
There have been many solutions suggested on these Benches and, I believe, on the Labour Benches. It has been suggested that there should be a committee of Privy Counsellors. I do not seek to say what the form should be. But other democracies have shown that the requirements of openness and accountability can be combined with the maintenance of secrecy intrinsic to the work. I also believe that the new—I hope slimmed down—intelligence services will positively welcome a more legitimate basis for their continuing operations.
Until that basis of ultimate accountability exists for those services, it remains a dubious decision of the Government to make MI5 the lead agency in the fight against IRA terrorism in mainland Britain rather than the ultimately accountable Special Branch police. Even if the security services become ultimately accountable, there would still be a strong case for treating the IRA as the killer gangsters they are rather than elevating them in status to enemies of the state. That is not an argument on my part against using whatever intelligence is available from whatever source. It reflects a strong preference for the normal civic agencies of law enforcement to be in the lead.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether there would be a debate on the issue of the lead responsibility of MI5 over the police for mainland security. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can address that issue in her reply to the debate.
Finally, I do not believe that the Government have done themselves any favour in relation to secrecy in Northern Ireland by the extraordinary decision of the DPP to use the Prevention of Terrorism Act to try to force journalists to reveal the sources for Channel 4's programme "The Committee" in its "Dispatches" series.

259
It is the first time that the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was a matter of great agonising for all sides of this House and another place but which nevertheless was passed because we know that they are extraordinary circumstances in Northern Ireland, has been used in that way. Not only does it set what to us on these Benches seems a very undesirable precedent but, as the Government must know, it also has the effect of discouraging the media from investigating. Given the serious allegations made in that programme of collusion between the security services and terrorists to commit sectarian murders, investigation and publication must be in the public interest. I understand that the hearing has been fixed for 27th July. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that the Attorney-General and the DPP, even at the eleventh hour, will consider not proceeding with the order for contempt, which seems calculated to hide wrongdoing rather than reveal it.
In conclusion, good government—which I imagine that all Benches in this House earnestly desire—means genuinely open government, toward which the Citizen's Charter is a small step. It would be a great achievement for this administration in the four or five years that stretch ahead of it. However, it will not be secured without far greater changes both in law and practice than the Government presently seem to contemplate.
4.56 p.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and apologise first to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having missed his speech and, secondly, to the House because I must leave before the end of the debate. I should like to begin by recording a warm word of welcome from these Benches to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, as Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal. It will be a pleasure to work with him. I should also like to express appreciation for the courtesy and skill of his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and wish him well in his new appointment.
I am delighted to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on the occasion of his maiden speech. In this House we shall all benefit immensely from his tremendous experience of working with mentally handicapped people. I admire the lead which he and and Royal Mencap have given in helping our society to face up to its responsibilities in relation to those who are just as valuable as any other person in the sight of God. I am sure that we shall benefit from the noble Lord's legendary sense of humour.
I take this opportunity at the start of a new Parliament with a new government team to share some reflections about the challenges of the next few years from the perspective of the Church. The contributions from these Benches are, we trust, based on the example and teachings of Jesus Christ as we strive to apply them in all aspects of contemporary life. As many know, I am strongly committed to promoting Christian values as its bedrock. Talking about God is not something with which contemporary society is comfortable. I even find that my own
260
references to God are sometimes sensitively avoided in newspaper reports of what I have to say, although yesterday was an exception. However, I can always be assured that they will be in Hansard.
I cannot accept the view that religion is merely a practice to be undertaken by consenting adults in private. For each of us our life as a social citizen as well as a private individual must make sense in terms of what we believe to be its purpose and the values which should guide it. We are taught in the Judaeo-Christian tradition that every human being is unique, precious and equally valuable to God. Therefore a Christian society must nurture belief in the unique value of each individual.
At the same time each one of us is commanded to love our neighbour and to subordinate ourselves to the service of God and of other people. Those fundamental principles must be brought together, not quoted selectively, if a government are to have moral authority. To emphasise individual rights without also acknowledging individual and social responsibilities to others is contrary to Christian teaching. So equally is the pursuit of collective social goals in ways which fail to respect the rights and unique importance of each individual. I therefore plead that we do not have a polarised debate between those positions as though they were alternatives. As your Lordships will recognise, issues of government, even life itself, are more complicated than that. They involve making judgments, and assessing balances between different interests. In this House, at least, we do not need to fall into the trap of making things seem simpler than they really are.
I hope too that in considering the condition of our society we can avoid unhelpfully polarised discussion of the causes of goodness and evil. Of course each individual is responsible before God for his or her decisions and behaviour. The idea that Church leaders have ceased to be concerned with the fundamental battle between goodness and evil in each individual is preposterously wrong. This can readily be seen from the sermons, addresses and prayers which we offer as Christian teachers day by day but which so often go on unnoticed or unrecognised by the media.
On the other hand, it is plain that public policies too can have effects for good and ill. As a national Church, we continue to minister to every part of England. As we have chaplains in every prison in the land we know something about bad prisons as well as good ones. We have ministers in every parish in the country and know all too well the importance to the life chances of a child of choosing its parents wisely, of selecting the right neighbourhood, housing and schooling. As a substantial provider of educational and social services, the Church is itself affected by legislation. We see how the imperfections of our laws and social arrangements can conspire with the inherent weakness of individuals to obstruct God's purposes. And we see how good laws and policies can help unlock people's inherent goodness.
With the debate in America about their urban riots still ringing in our ears, I want to add that the Church does not think of itself as ministering to an "underclass". We minister to people, each of whom is

261
of equal value to God. If as a nation we cease to value all of them, not simply those who are likely to be successful, we can expect to reap a bitter harvest.
It is against that background that I should like to express two hopes for the work of this House in the new Session of Parliament. The first is that we shall be unafraid to acknowledge the complexities of what we believe are right. For instance, I gladly acknowledge that it ill behoves Church leaders in their contribution to political debate to speak as though it is easy to turn good intentions into effective policies. We in this House all know that the search for spiritual, social and material improvements in our society involves policy makers in extremely difficult trade-offs and intractable dilemmas. There are clear limits to what any government can do.
However, I have the temerity to make the same point to politicians trying their hand as theologians and teachers of morality. Fundamental moral precepts can be compellingly simple but translating them into doing the right thing in our individual lives can be desperately difficult, as we all know. However much we may long for the choices in life to be simple, I do not accept that moral purposes can be achieved by straightforward application of a received formula. We cannot escape from hard thinking, prayer and the constant searching of individual conscience, in private matters as well as in public policy making.
My second hope is that this House will continue to insist that the spiritual, religious and moral dimensions of life must be respected as part of policy making. Public morality cannot be privatised. It cannot become a mere matter of individual opinion. After all, the legislature in a democratic society has huge powers and responsibilities resting on it. We decide how children are to be taught compulsorily in our schools. In this House we have insisted on the spiritual and moral dimension of education when it seemed in danger of neglect. Let us continue to do so in the years ahead. We determine how prisoners, totally within the power of the state, are to be treated.
We help to decide how far human beings in our country should be allowed to appropriate the rest of God's creation at will, both animals and natural resources, for our own ends. We must consider how far we are prepared to share our wealth with the hungry and wretched of the earth. The crucial issues at stake in the UNCED conference at Rio must loom large in all our thoughts and prayers. We have to help regulate scientific and medical practice. Our social provision could substantially alter the life chances of many individuals and the stresses on many families; and we have heard something of that from other speakers today. We have to decide how to respond to people who throw themselves on our mercy seeking asylum.
These are not simply political or practical matters. They are moral issues. The Church will strive to place its spiritual, theological and pastoral experience and insights at the disposal of this House to the best of its ability. We shall try to help the House and the country to address those questions in a manner that befits a society based on Christian principles. Indeed, it is an
262
integral part of our Christian commitment to try to ensure that the moral decisions which no government and no Parliament can avoid are pleasing to God. Hence the importance which I attach to the Bishops' presence in this House. If only we could relieve ourselves of oversimplified expectations on either side I am confident that the dialogue between politicians and Church leaders can be positive and constructive; a partnership of people with complementary experience and of no small importance in tackling the agenda of issues which now comes before this Parliament.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am the eighth maiden to be brought before you in three days—a heavy meal even for a large dragon. In order that I shall not unduly trouble your digestion, I have chosen a bland subject for my speech and one which, as tradition demands, is completely uncontroversial. The National Health Service unites the major parties in their admiration of it, their commitment to it and their determination to provide it with ever greater resources.
The specific aspect of the National Health Service that I wish to discuss is the need, now widely acknowledged, to involve the general public in deciding the allocation of resources. The present allocation is the child of ancient precedent, modified by government initiatives and at the margins by pressure groups and charities. There is little public discussion of it, perhaps because the subject grates so when combined with party politics. But this lack of discussion means that the allocation is not legitimised in the public mind. The public lack an understanding of it. There is no consensus round which GP fundholders and the other newly independent elements of the health service can formulate their demands for change.
However, allocation is a subject that is particularly suited to public debate, for the questions at issue concern what is right—there is often no right answer—about what we feel to be right. For example, a health authority with additional funds at its disposal may wish to choose between a fertility clinic, better screening for breast cancer, new cancer treatments and extended facilities for hip replacement.
The choices here are between great benefits for a few or lesser benefits for many; between procedures of proven clinical value and those that offer peace of mind; between a little extra life for the dying and long years of relief for those in no immediate danger of death. No cold logic can guide such choices, but ethical, emotional, personal logic. Such choices demand public decisions, but they are deeply uncomfortable to contemplate as they involve in the ultimate deciding who shall suffer and who shall be saved. It is much easier for us to leave them to the National Health Service and if our needs are not satisfied to take out our pain on doctors or the Government.
It is not only dishonest and unjust to do this; it is likely to result in wrong decisions being taken, for without a clearly expressed public view the NHS must

263
make assumptions about what the public want on the basis of the prevailing orthodoxy; and, as demonstrated by the result of the recent general election, the orthodox view of the public's desires does not always accord with reality. If the public are to play a part in the discussion of allocation they need information on which to base their discussions, mechanisms whereby they may be consulted and mechanisms whereby their opinions are taken into account.
The flow of ideas and experiments on those subjects is already well under way. Notable examples are to be found in the experiments taking place in the state of Oregon on public involvement in the allocation of Medicare funds; in the work of York University on the quantification of benefits to the quality of life offered by different medical procedures; and in the many initiatives by regional and district health authorities, among which I would particularly mention East Anglia's intruigingly titled Rubber Windmill projects. Indeed, the National Health Executive itself is active in exploring these matters, albeit cautiously.
The need for greater public participation in the allocation of resources is now accepted wisdom within the NHS, but the emotional fire fight of party politics has kept it far from the centre of public debate. Now, at the furthest possible remove from a general election, must be the best possible time to bring it to the fore. It should be discussed openly and in general debate so that the public may be made fully aware of the ways in which the National Health Service is seeking its guidance. I believe that if we can achieve this, we should find that public participation will help keep the health service in tune with the public's desires, will lighten the moral burden on the profession of the decisions which it must take and, perhaps most importantly, will strengthen a healthy understanding by the public of what the NHS is and what it can do; how it can best be used and how it can best be cared for.
5.14 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, it falls to me with great honour to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on his thought-provoking maiden speech. A great responsibility rests on his shoulders because the main criticism of this House is that it accepts hereditary Peers. If they are all like the noble Lord, there will be no problem. He has given us food for thought and has shown that he understands what he is talking about. I hope that we shall hear from him often. I am privileged to be the one to congratulate him on behalf of the whole House.
I wish too to congratulate my good friend Lord Rix on his splendid maiden speech. When I was Lord Lieutenant of Greater London I had the privilege of making him Vice Lieutenant. He has several important jobs and I hope that his contributions to them are as good as his contribution in this House.
Perhaps I dare also congratulate the most reverend Primate. As a Catholic I endorse everything that he said. I wondered whether our Bishop was spreading his money to the poor when he had a relationship with the lady who now says he fathered her child. Perhaps
264
that was his interpretation of the way to be a good Christian. I feel that we must constantly remind a Christian country of the Christian philosophy. We must never let that go by default.
Out of consideration for my colleagues I have chosen only one subject. I can stay in the Chamber only until 10 o'clock because my driver can wait no longer. We are all subject to somebody's discipline. I apologise and I hope that the debate will have finished by then. It will, provided that all noble Lords keep their speeches short. The subject that I have chosen was largely ignored by all parties during the general election; by my party, by Mr. Paddy Ashdown's party and by the Government. It is the subject of crime.
During my canvassing visits, people did not, oddly enough, ask me about Europe. They did not even ask about the National Health Service, because we are happy with what we have in Fulham. However, they asked about employment and about crime prevention. Your Lordships should make no mistake about the fact that it is a live and relevant issue in our society. The gracious Speech stated:
"Action will be taken to combat crime and promote law and order".
That is one of those lovely statements that means precisely nothing. The first question is: is there crime? Perhaps I may quote from the Daily Express, not a notably Left-wing publication. It stated that in 1991 we had the worst crime figures—the worst—in England and Wales, at more than 5 million. Let us not hear any nonsense about petty crime because no crime is petty to the victim. We do not spend enough time talking about the victims because we are always worried about the offenders. Let us consider occasionally the effect on the poor lady aged 81 who had her handbag stolen. The figure is up by some 16 per cent. The then Home Office Minister made one of those marvellous statements by saying that the overall figure of 5.5 million showed a welcome slow down. Are we not becoming expert at making such euphemistic comments? I still believe that the best such comment was made by the chairman on an occasion when I was speaking. He said, "There has been a noticeable falling off in the lack of apathy". I am still trying to work out what he meant. What precisely is meant by a welcome slow down?
Perhaps I may give examples in my own borough. I know that I am being anecdotal and that your Lordships do not like that but I am sorry—that is how it works. During a period of three weeks cars were stolen, vandalised or both. An Indian shopkeeper who was loved by everyone was attacked, knifed and killed. The offenders took about £30 out of his till. A woman aged 81 who lived in a block of flats was tied up and robbed. The offenders took from her about £20 which she had collected that day from the Post Office. Half of the school at which my son teaches has been burnt down. Those events are happening around me. We used to read about crime in the newspapers but now our friends and relatives come in and tell us about it. Burglaries and handbag thefts persist all the time.
This year we have seen the introduction of something called joyriding. In England we are very clever in that we always find a euphemistic name so

265
that it does not sound as bad as it really is. However, it is the criminal theft of a car. A mother was interviewed the other day about her son, who had stolen 30 cars. She said, "Well, he might have killed himself". I must not offend Him too much but, I thought, perhaps that would not have been a bad idea. At no stage did that mother say that her son had committed a sin.
In 20 major centres there have been outbreaks of such crime. The reasons given for that are boredom—well, bad luck—envy and unemployment. We have listened to one or two speeches today which rather made my adrenalin flow. I grew up in the 1930s when life was hard and when there was not always unemployment pay but still you did not steal. Why was that? Well, I came from a good Catholic home where that kind of thing simply was not done. Are young people receiving the proper influence from their homes? I do not think they are. Mothers are worse than anyone. They say, did not know he was going out every night doing that". What kind of a mother is that? The people who suffer are the ones for whom I feel sorry and they are the ones we must protect.
I was delighted—and I am sure this is a dreadful thing to say—when that little town in North Wales took the matter into their own hands and drove the boy out. As I have said before, if ordinary citizens—and let us face it, 98 per cent. of the population are still good people who obey the law—begin to feel that they do not receive protection or justice, then we shall have vigilantes who take the law into their own hands. Therefore, the Government have a terrific responsibility.
How should they deal with that? So far as I can discover, in 1990 the Queen's Speech stated:
"My Government will vigorously pursue their policies in fighting crime". [Official Report, 7/11/90; col.3]
Let us see how vigorously they have pursued them. They set up Crime Concern and they poured a lot of money into it—at least it was a lot of money by my standards, having worked for different charities. I asked how much was spent on crime prevention. The Government told me, having corrected what they first told me, as I was given the wrong figures, which got me rather worried, that Home Office expenditure on crime prevention for 1991 was £16 million. Perhaps your Lordships will think about that. We never talk in thousands now. It is always millions or billions. When you try to raise money, as I have, for really good causes, it just makes you feel furious.
That figure includes expenditure of £6 million spent on publicity. That is fine. That means that from all that money spent on the crime prevention campaign, we shall get more brochures and more surveys. People are surveying every day. I get something in the post every day asking me whether I do this or do that. At a dinner the other night I told a joke. I said, "Ladies and gentlemen, did you know that every Wednesday all women aged 41 cross their legs, make a cup of coffee and sit down and enjoy it". Most people laughed but two people came up to me and asked me the name of the survey. We have reached a nonsensical point. For example, the banks are all writing to me. I
266
say to the banks, "All I want is good service. I do not want you to spend my money on PR". That goes also for the Government. I ask them not to waste money on brochures or surveys. They should spend the money on what it is meant for; that is, crime prevention.
Also, millions of pounds go into paying for the police training college. I should have thought that that would have come out of the normal expenses of running the police force but evidently that is not so.
How much of that money really goes to the people who wish to prevent crime? If one tries to set up a crime prevention panel, one can get lots of advice and brochures and surveys but no money with which to pay to send them out. If the money is there, at least that can be used to support the people who are doing the work voluntarily—and there are lots of very good people trying to do that work.
We must never get into the bad habit, which this Government have got into, of blaming the victim. It is said, "You did not lock your car". I am amazed at the number of people who admit that. Can you imagine that a policeman comes up to you and asks, "Now, did you lock that car?" and you answer, "No, I didn't". They are obviously more honest than most of the people I came up against when I was a magistrate.
However, perhaps people want to have a window open occasionally without a burglar getting in. People wish to be able to live normal lives. The Government have a great responsibility in that respect and we shall support them. The fact that crime does not come high on the agenda worries me because it is as important as any of the other issues that we have discussed. I make a plea to the Government to place it much higher on their agenda than it is at present.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Baroness is always a pleasure to follow but she is always difficult to follow because she raises so many matters that one wishes to discuss that what one came here to say is apt to be left out. Perhaps I may say for the information of the most reverend Archbishop, whose speech I enjoyed enormously, that every speech seems to me to have taken a high moral tone. I assure the maiden speakers that that does not always happen in this House. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is well known for his high moral acts and for his services to those people who need them, for whom he has done a great deal of good. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, brought out the essential moral problems of whether someone of my age should be given free pills which could save somebody much younger. That is a very difficult problem.
I have one or two non-moral remarks which I wish to make so I shall not discuss those other matters, although I should like to. At this stage, I wish to make only two points. First, your Lordships may be surprised to hear that I wish to congratulate the Government and the new Secretary of State in charge of the National Heritage Ministry on accepting the plan for a national lottery whose proceeds are to go to the arts and sport. I urge the Minister to be sure that the Treasury stake is strictly limited. The arts should

267
receive a generous share. I remind him that more people in this country go to concerts, opera and the theatre than go to football matches. I respect the Minister for being willing and brave enough to ignore the rather bigoted attitude which suggests that gambling is such a real evil that it is wrong to accept money derived from it, however good the cause.
The only thing wrong with the arts in their extraordinary growth since Maynard Keynes converted CEMA—or was it ENSA?—into the Arts Council at the end of the last war was, and still is, money. Now that the Minister has accepted this painless way of raising large sums, I must beg him not to play about with the existing organisation which has made possible that extraordinary growth and whose only weakness has been too little cash support. To allow the Arts Council to disappear and to abandon the arm's length principle just when, for the first time for 50 years, there is the possibility of substantially more money would be criminal folly. I am sure that the new Secretary of State will be too wise to make such a crude mistake.
My second point is much more difficult and in a sense much less moral—at least I am sure that my predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, will think so. I wish to complain—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made the same point—that there is no reference to the Woolf Report in the gracious Speech. That seems to me to be a grievous omission. Everyone who has looked at the facts is aware that the conditions in some of our prisons, and certainly for people on remand in police cells—who are presumed innocent until found guilty—are a disgrace to our great nation and are inexcusable.
Some noble Lords may not remember the Woolf Report. However, as a result of the riots in Strangeways Prison, Manchester, Lord Justice Woolf was commissioned to produce a report, which was published in February last year. It is a comprehensive analysis and makes 204 important recommendations. That is a landmark in the uneasy and generally ineffective rumblings of prison reform. We must insist that it becomes a turning point so that conditions which have not improved much and indeed have often deteriorated over the past 30 years, will now change radically for the better.
Last year the Government published a White Paper in response to the Woolf Report, entitled Custody, Care and Justice. That was an encouraging start, in that it accepted in principle the overwhelming majority of the Woolf proposals. However, in all too many instances the White Paper gave no timetable for implementing the recommendations which Lord Justice Woolf made. To be fair, we must acknowledge that progress in some areas has been swift. For example, on the day the Woolf Report was published the Government announced the introduction of more visits, the virtual abolition of letter censorship, a doubling of home leave opportunities for prisoners in open prisons and access to telephones for prisoners in all prisons. I hope that the noble Baroness will not object to those advances. Those reforms have already been, or are currently being, introduced. Perhaps the
268
noble Baroness who is to reply can write to me to tell me how many of our 125 prisons are still without visitors centres.
From April this year the disciplinary role of Boards of Visitors was ended. That was recommended 13 years ago by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in an inquiry report. After 13 years it is rather nice to see it being implemented. The Government have agreed to appoint an independent complaints adjudicator for prisons and intend to make an appointment in December this year. So far so good. But we must see the same sense of urgency applied to all the rest of Woolf's recommendations. That is far from being the case.
First, Lord Justice Woolf proposed the drawing up of a code of standards for the prison system with which, in time, every prison would have to comply. That is obviously difficult and cannot be done all at once. But the process of working towards completion, we are told, will not even begin until five years after the Strangeways riot; that is, 1995.
Secondly, Lord Justice Woolf argued for community prisons. We are told that that aim may take 25 years to realise. Thirdly, we come to the crucial issue of overcrowding. The Woolf Report proposed that a new prison rule should prohibit any prison from accommodating more prisoners than it was designed to hold. It said that the Home Secretary should have to lay an order before Parliament if he wished to suspend the application of that rule. The Government turned that recommendation down flat.
In a debate in this House in 1969 which I had the honour to open, I asserted that the prerequisite of any prison reform was to get rid of overcrowding. I assert that again today, 23 years later. In those days the overall overcrowding was around 7 per cent. but it was up to 30 per cent. in local prisons. Today the overall figure is down to 4·5 per cent. but for the 15,000 prisoners in local prisons it is still 30 per cent. and, in the 10 largest, ranges from 45 per cent. to 65 per cent. I do not know whether anyone in this House has recently been inside a local prison but most of them are the most awful places in the world. They are an absolute disgrace.
Overcrowding has flourished under successive governments but it is fair to say that for 13 years it has been the responsibility of the present one. We must not accept a flat refusal. No government have yet made a determined attempt to correct the evil, yet, until overcrowding is eliminated, little improvement in conditions or staff morale can be expected. Surely the Government must give full acceptance in principle, even if it needs a 10-year plan and the occasional use of executive release to achieve it.
Though the Government have been in power for 13 years they may well have another five to go. Since the publication of the report in February 1991–15 months ago—no excuse for inaction remains. It is greatly to their credit that they commissioned the Woolf Report, though it is a pity it took a major catastrophe like the Strangeways riot to get them to do so. But the universal approbation with which its devastating analysis and detailed and practical recommendations have been received cries out for

269
immediate action. We owe a great debt to Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Tumim. Now there is no excuse for anything less than a thorough overhaul of our prison shortcomings, which have been so clearly pointed out, and a phased timetable for implementing all the recommendations in the report. The Government must give us full acceptance in principle, a timed and phased programme for each of the major recommendations and a full explanation with regard to any that are rejected.
We have waited for 30 years, and the time at last has come. There is no excuse for inaction. I apologise for not making a more moral speech but it has a moral background in that, even with criminals, one wants to behave decently.
5.37 p.m.
The Earl of Snowdon: My Lords, it gives me the greatest pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on his excellent and well-informed maiden speech and also to offer my warmest congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rix—I am afraid I am not impartial—on his most eloquent and compassionate maiden speech. I hope that his performance will tomorrow receive the rave reviews that it deserves.
We are all aware of the noble Lord's dedicated work for the benefit of disabled people generally, and mentally handicapped people in particular. I am sure that your Lordships share my hope that he will come to speak frequently in this House on the subject about which he is so well informed—the many and varied problems that so often unnecessarily face the 6 million disabled people in this country alone for whom this House has shown so much involvement, concern and understanding.
I share the noble Lord's worry about so-called "new-speak" —new words that are evidently sometimes considered acceptable and at other times totally unacceptable. To emphasise the noble Lord's reference to definitions, I remember well as a child that the word "cripple" was frequently used. My grandfather, Robert Armstrong-Jones, a surgeon, was created by the Lord Chancellor of the day "Master of Lunacy" to determine the question of "sanity" and to visit "lunatics and idiots". Until very recently the Royal Putney Hospital was titled "The Hospital for Incurables". The inscription is still carved in the facade. The sooner it is obliterated the better, but ironically it is a listed building so permission will have to be obtained from English Heritage to do so. These are examples of what I call unacceptable labelling.
On the other hand, in the May issue of Disability Now a certain organisation is reported as saying that it objects to the words "mental handicap". It finds them insulting. I do not, and neither do I attach much importance to saying "hard of hearing" rather than "deaf", nor "impaired sight" rather than "blind". Surely what matters is not these transient and irrelevant definitions but understanding and involvement with people in our community, whatever disability they may have. It is the word "people" that is important. I am extremely pleased that the title in
270
another place is now the Minister for Disabled People rather than the Minister for the Disabled. After all, we are all people.
What surely we are demanding—I say demanding rather than asking for—is equal rights for all people with physical disabilities: equal rights to work; equal rights to go where they want, when they want; equal rights in education; equal rights to be integrated into our society at the earliest stage; and equal rights to be treated as first-class citizens. We are not asking for charitable sympathy, nor for well-meaning do-gooding.
Although it was not specifically mentioned in the gracious Speech, I have to say that I am now, albeit somewhat reluctantly, in favour of introducing legislation to give disabled people certain rights to employment and recognition in other vital areas. Of course, the more palatable and effortless solution is to concentrate on education and persuasion to change attitudes and the problems that are faced by many disabled people. In 1976, when I had the honour of chairing a working party on integration, I believed that that would work, but, sadly, I have now come to the conclusion that, although certain aspects have improved since then, and above all since the International Year of Disabled People in 1981, not nearly enough progress has been made for the benefit of disabled people and for giving them their due. I now believe that legislation is the only answer.
People who break the law are rightly punished if they discriminate against minorities in this country—citizens who may have a different religion or colour of skin to the majority—but as matters stand it is quite within the law for certain individuals and organisations in positions of power to castigate disabled people. Appropriate legislation now exists in America and certain other countries. Sadly, as I say, I think we need it here.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is in agreement with me over this, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who spoke so knowledgeably and strongly in favour of legislation in this House on 21st February, as indeed did many on both sides of your Lordships' House. The all-party disablement group in another place has also contributed a great deal, and party politics have never come into any discussion or debate and I hope never will.
There are so many varied and important issues to be studied regarding physical disabilities, from research and prevention to environmental obstacles; from integration at the earliest possible age in schools to equal opportunities both in further education and in employment; from the social barriers that still exist through total ignorance to the education of public attitudes; from giving proper training to architects, town planners and engineers to making the fire authorities aware of the difference between the unquestionable importance of safety versus useless, inflexible bureaucratic rules and regulations that are so often given as an excuse and for the wrong reasons.
Then of course there is the vitally important issue of access—I mean total access—to both old and new buildings. All too frequently the authorities either ignore the problem altogether or do not give it enough

271
thought. Just erecting the odd ramp and a lavatory embellished with that wheelchair symbol as a feeble, superficial gesture is not good enough. It is disgraceful that people in wheelchairs are forbidden admission to Lancaster House, for example—the main venue for government hospitality—unless they are accompanied by a "pusher" because they are apparently a so-called fire hazard in that particular edifice.
British Rail puts labels on the back of certain seats—in the old stock, that is—stating, "Please give up this seat if a disabled person needs it", but one cannot get a wheelchair through the carriage door. So still to this day human beings often have to travel in the luggage van, with neither heat nor light. I am assured, however, that by the end of the century the situation will have improved and one hopes a lot sooner now that British Rail may be partly privatised, as was mentioned in the gracious Speech.
Unfortunately, there are certain buildings where total access cannot be achieved. I know that the National Trust and English Heritage share your Lordships' concern and do as much as they can to welcome people with disabilities to their properties. Regrettably, however, we have to come to terms with the fact that there are medieval structures where it may be architecturally impossible to provide total access for disabled people. This is where we must be careful not to whinge too much. We do not want to become known as a group of whingers, neither do we want to be seen as Philistines destroying our architectural heritage.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, mentioned Care in the Community in 1993. I have certain reservations about the word "care". It worries me that of late the word "care" is being wrongly flaunted around and abused, both editorially and in the world of advertising, with a great lack of care and a constant stress that certain organisations, professions and individuals almost have a caring monopoly. Surely it should be presumed that every worthwhile member of the community cares, whatever his job, from airline pilot to nurse; from bus driver to banker; from shop assistant to restaurateur; from shop steward to industrialist.
People with a physical disability do not want to be surrounded by so-called "caring" people. They want action, and not words, to put into practice what is their right—their right to work; their right to be listened to; their right to live an integrated life in the community; their right to travel in a dignified way; their right to be accepted; their right to enjoy their lives to the full which their able-bodied counterparts may take for granted; and, above all, their right to be recognised and appraised for their abilities alone and not singled out for their disabilities.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I should like to talk this afternoon on the importance of improving the machinery and procedures for securing law reform. I am very conscious that because of the many great social concerns that we have heard aired this afternoon—if I may say so, perhaps none more eloquently than in the last speech that we have heard—the topic I have chosen may seem somewhat dry and
272
esoteric. Indeed, I can envisage that, in the theatrical metaphor to which we have listened so delightfully, it may well lead to a rush to the exit doors.
However, having said that, I suspect that the matter is of vital concern to us all because the procedures to ensure that legislation can be effectively achieved are, after all, an essential conduit to creating the framework that we seek for making effective changes in the areas that may be our priority. I am conscious, too, and glad that your Lordships' House will debate this topic at somewhat greater length in a few weeks' time, but I hope that I may be permitted to say a few words today because I shall be unable to be present on that occasion.
The hurdles that exist at present against effective law reform are well known. As we would all expect in this House, they have been strikingly and vividly expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in his fascinating autobiography The Sparrow's Tale. He writes in these inimitable terms:
"You then have to struggle for a place in an overcrowded legislative programme. You have to overcome the resistance of the obscurantists and the forces of inertia. You have to control the enthusiasts, and finally, if you are lucky, and after immense discussion in both Houses of Parliament, you may have achieved a worthwhile change. On the way, you have to face a number of unnecessary obstacles, the division of responsibility between departments, each, like the DTI and the Home Office, sovereign in its own field and each imbued with an orthodox tradition deeply embedded in the thinking of its own departmental officials. In Parliament you have to reckon with the loquacity and insensate zeal of enthusiasts, the hostility of single-purpose pressure groups, nearly always well motivated but sometimes wholly misguided… The task of the reformer is thus strewn with pitfalls".
I do not propose today to tilt at all those windmills at once. It is understandable that, where proposed legislation involves controversial policy issues, the power of persuasion may sometimes be prolonged and tortuous. I wish to concentrate only on Bills that can properly be described as those which seek technical law reform. Such Bills, despite their label as "technical", are nevertheless important. They can affect the rights and liabilities of individuals and the smooth functioning of commerce. The principle behind them is often widely and generally accepted as sensible. In the case of Law Commission Bills, they have been preceded by wide consultation and published well in advance of their introduction to Parliament. Yet because of our current procedures it is extremely difficult to carry those principles forward into legislation.
This is a concern that has been regularly voiced. In its last two annual reports the Law Commission has expressed regret that so few of its recent recommendations have found a place in the legislative programme. In each of those reports attention was drawn to a steadily worsening trend. In 1991 the report stated:
"At the time the Commission was established, the fear was often expressed that Parliament would not find time for law reform legislation emanating from the Commission. In 1971 our predecessors were able to say that such fear had proved ill-founded, because the managers of the Government's legislative business had been generous with time, notwithstanding the other urgent calls on it, and private members had shown themselves ready to advance the work of law reform. Unhappily, attitudes appear to have changed in more recent years".

273
More recent concern has been expressed in a consultative paper published by the Legal Risk Review Committee established under the aegis of the Bank of England. This committee, which I happen to chair, was established to look at the extent to which uncertainty as to the operation of the law might be a disadvantage to the preservation and enhancement of the City of London as Europe's major international financial centre. We have received a good deal of evidence from all sectors of financial markets which expresses their reservations about the law reform processes. Widespread concern was expressed to us that these processes tend to be, as was said, unstructured, inefficient and, above all, extremely slow. We ourselves are in full agreement with the concerns expressed by the Law Commission.
In saying this, we recognise that the difficulties are practical. The demands on parliamentary time mean that priority is inevitably given to Bills which reflect the Government's programme: whether manifesto or policy commitments, or Bills that are necessary to incorporate international convention, or Bills that are thought desirable to meet an unforeseen emergency. Some of these Bills are so important that they take a good deal of the time available in any one Session. The Children Act 1989 and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 are both recent examples which your Lordships will recollect.
These priorities are understandable, and it is difficult to see that they will or should change. That is why it is so important to seek to devise a procedure which will find additional time so that issues of technical law reform may properly be considered. I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is not without sympathy for this view. He suggested to the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe that it would be worth exploring the possibility of using the special committee procedure in this House to facilitate the inclusion of Bills, such as those recommended by the Law Commission, which would not otherwise find a place in the legislative programme. He raised the possibility that such committees could be taken off the Floor in this House. The committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe went on, in the light of that suggestion, to recommend in its report the experimental use of special standing committee procedures for certain technical and legal Bills. I hope that that proposal will be adopted so that its effectiveness can be tested. However, it would, as I understand it, require some form of link with the procedure in another place to ensure that a Bill which was dealt with in this way in our House could be effectively progressed in another place.
There would be, perhaps, a number of Law Commission Bills which would be suitable for this procedure. Perhaps I may take two examples. I turn first to the proposal in 1989 entitled Jurisdiction over Offences of Fraud and Dishonesty with a Foreign Element. This report was widely welcomed by those fighting international fraud. It contained a short, draft Bill which could probably have been enacted without controversy. No arguments have been advanced. It
274
was thought an eminently sensible measure. Perhaps it may fall within the ambit of the legislation to combat fraud which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor mentioned this afternoon.
The second example is the proposal in 1991 called Rights of Suit in Respect of Carriage of Goods by Sea. That proposal was introduced as a Bill in the window of time which preceded the general election. While not a Government Bill, it had support from all political parties. Unfortunately, although it passed speedily through this House it was unable to pass through the House of Commons because of the dissolution of Parliament. It contained proposals widely thought to be necessary to reform the Bills of Lading Act 1855. The present position, therefore, is that the current law has been shown to be unsatisfactory and in need of amendment. It is important that our law is brought up to date, especially if we are not to be at a disadvantage compared with other jurisdictions. One such alert jurisdiction, the Netherlands, is changing its own law to make it more attractive to those dissatisfied with English bills of lading. Another illustration of a Bill that might be suitable for the committee procedure is the arbitration Bill, which I understand to be at a fairly advanced stage of gestation.
I do not suggest that the proposal to take technical Bills off the Floor of this House is more than one modest, first step towards assisting the better progress of technical law reform. I would hope that the problems which are currently widely recognised can be constructively addressed during this Session.
Perhaps I may add a personal plea. At present there is no consultation on the drafting of government Bills. The general principles of a new statute may be set out in a consultative paper on which views are canvassed, but the text of the Bill is not disseminated prior to its introduction to Parliament. That contrasts with the Law Commission procedure. It is hard for many of us to understand why this remains so. The effect is undoubtedly that the structure and language of the Bill are crystallised without there being the opportunity for them to be significantly influenced by informed comment. As Professor Roy Goode, the very experienced Norton Rose professor of English law at Oxford, has said:
"Amendments to the Bill take place while it is going through Parliament, with all the time pressures of the legislative process, and it is scarcely surprising that, at the end of the day, the result is all too often an enactment of extraordinary prolixity, obscurity and convolution".
I accept that your Lordships may not recognise that as being the state of any Bill which leaves your Lordships' House, but it is an outside view.
I also accept that parliamentary draftsmanship is a skilled and difficult task. But I believe that it is time to take the view that consultation on draft Bills should play a part in improving the process. I very much hope that the sympathy which my noble and learned friend has expressed for securing an improved machinery will be one of which we may see tangible signs with the help of the Government Front Bench during the course of this Session.
6.1 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, speaks with high authority on the law and law reform. I hope that on some other occasion he will address us on banking. He is after all one of the half dozen most eminent bankers in the country.
Banking has changed a good deal in the past 30 years since I was chairman of one of the smaller clearing banks. I do not know whether all noble Lords will think there has been an improvement. My bank was absorbed by a magnificent institution which I would naturally wish to conciliate. The other day I telephoned it with the usual fear and trembling to ask the state of my account. The young person at the other end said, "Number? The computer needs a number". I said that I did not know the number. When eventually I discovered the number, the computer, after a moment's pause, said, "No such number." That is what comes from having been a bank chairman in the dark ages. However, the noble Lord will, I am sure, humanise banking as he has humanised the law.
I join in the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. The noble Lord mentioned me. I am a very small fish in that pond. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, deserves a great deal more credit. He, after all, brought the noble Lord, Lord Rix, into his position. That was an achievement in itself. If I were asked today what living Englishman has done more than anyone else to help the helpless in this country, I would answer, the noble Lord, Lord Cheshire. We all hope and pray that his health improves. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is becoming a strong candidate for that position. In his autobiography the noble Lord, Lord Cheshire, tells us that he is happy with the disabled. He has, after all, founded 300 homes throughout the world. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has the same quality of being happy with the handicapped. It is a rare quality. We all envy him and salute him for what he has done and for his speech today.
Just before I came into the House someone said to me, "I suppose you are going to speak about penal reform." To the evident relief of this person, I said no. He obviously thought it was unlikely that I had any other subject. I knew that penal reform and other such matters would be dealt with superbly, as they have been, by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, Lord Windlesham, Lord Donaldson, and, from a different angle perhaps, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I knew that penal reform would be well covered so I decided to speak on a different subject. I hope that the subject will not cause any embarrassment. I want to ask a question: what does it mean if one calls oneself a socialist? When I joined the Labour Party in 1936, having had other experience, I said, "I am a socialist because I am a Christian". I would say that today but I would mean something rather different from socialist and slightly different from Christian because I have become a Roman Catholic in the meantime. However, that has not really affected the issue I am discussing this evening.
276
When in 1945 I became a Lord in Waiting I had the honour of being invited to call on King George VI. After a slight hesitation he said to me, "Why did you join them?" I had to think hard about what he was referring to. I concluded that he meant, "Why did you join the Labour Party?" What could one say to his much respected Majesty? I could have said, "Because I believe that all men are equal in the sight of God", which is what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop said earlier today. I could have gone on to say, if I were expressing my real thoughts and feelings, "We should all be treated in that way in the governance of men." That is how I could have expressed my socialism—then and now. That seemed a little impertinent as I stood there bowing away so I said, "Because I am on the side of the underdog." The King paused for a moment, as was his wont, and then said, "So am I." That ended the conversation. I have had a tremendous admiration for him ever since. He was fully entitled to say that. When he was Duke of York he ran the Duke of York's camps and had for years worked among the poorest. He was making no idle boast.
Many other people quite remote from politics are engaged in welfare work on the side of the underdog. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, dislikes the word "caring." I pay the highest tribute to those who devote their lives to caring for those in need. If one calls oneself any kind of socialist one must mean that one wishes to achieve equality of human beings through public action. One must mean that. One is not referring simply to one's charitable endeavours. In that sense therefore my attitude has not changed.
In one respect, however, there has been a change; it is from the point of view of elderly socialists who joined the Labour Party in the 1930s. This may also appeal to younger ones too. In those days we pinned great hopes on nationalisation. We believed that much could be achieved through nationalisation. Nationalisation has not proved a failure but it has not proved a gigantic success. There has been a drawn battle. I am not in the least in favour of attempts to privatise existing nationalised industries. To privatise the prisons would be an obscenity. I am not moving away from what one might call orthodox policy but I certainly do not believe that we shall be able to achieve what we hope to achieve—a new kind of society—through the particular instrument of nationalisation. We have to pin our hopes on making private enterprise and various forms of collective enterprise work effectively. We have to pin our hopes on that. That means a change from the 1930s. I believe—and anyone who calls himself a socialist believes —in the equality of all human beings and in the duty of trying to realise that through public action.
It may be that being on the side of the underdog is not a winning cause. The underdog is not all that popular with the rest of the community. He is at the bottom. For example—to take but one—it is said that there are no votes in penal reform. That may be true. Whether or not there are votes in any particular aspect of the cause of the underdog, we must stick to it. We must never give up the attempt to realise the kingdom of God through serving the underdog.

277
There was a poet by the name of Crosland—not, I believe, related to the late Anthony Crosland. He put what I am trying to say extremely well. He said, "I trod the road to hell, but there were things that I might have sold and did not sell". I am sure that the Labour Party must never abandon its belief, whether it is called socialist or under whatever name it passes.
6.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House for the fact that I shall be unable to stay to hear the end of the debate. I apologise especially to the Minister. I am afraid that I have a previous engagement which was booked many months ago before I knew that today's debate was to take place. I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on his maiden speech. How fortunate we are in this House to have added to our number such a persuasive advocate who can speak on behalf of the handicapped. As one who has a handicapped person living in the immediate family, I should like to say how glad I am to know that he is here to speak up for such people.
As a society, it seems to me that we need not just to be more considerate towards the handicapped but to recognise that they have a particular and unique contribution to make to society. The truth always seems to me to be that we are all handicapped in one way or another; it is just that some people's handicaps are nearer the surface and more visible. In those terms, I believe that we can recognise how much other people have to contribute.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on his maiden speech. By the very choice of his subject he has shown that he is sensitive to highly important issues. We look forward to hearing further contributions from him.
In the gracious Speech, reference was made to the legislation that will be brought forward,
"to extend choice and diversity in education".
In the pause before that legislation is brought before the House, I wonder whether we could reflect further on two fundamental matters. First, how is the confidence of the teaching profession to be regained? Secondly, what are the values taught in and expressed by our educational system?
Members of the teaching profession are in large measure dazed and disheartened: they are dazed by the number of changes that they have been asked to put into effect following what they believe to have been scant consultation; and they are disheartened because they feel undervalued both by society and by the Government. I believe that, in some measure, they have not helped themselves. I am thinking, for example, of the way in which they have been, in my view, unwisely and unnecessarily cautious about appraisal. But, whatever the cause of the malaise, we shall not have an improved education service until teachers have confidence in it and in themselves. I hope that the new Secretary of State will be able to tackle that matter directly.
The second issue is the question of values taught in, and expressed by, our education system. The Secretary
278
of State recently indicated that he would like to see moral values given a firmer place and a sharper focus in schools. I personally welcome that, though without necessarily calling in aid the longer term sanctions against those who fail to adhere to the moral standards to which he referred. I also note that the chairman of the National Curriculum Council has drawn attention to the need for moral and spiritual values to feature in the curriculum. Those recent speeches echo the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which has now been incorporated, although in slightly different terms, into the recently agreed schools Act. That growing attention to values seems to me to be welcome. We now know that we cannot have value-free education: value-free education becomes valueless education. We all have values and it is time that we were much more explicit and less apologetic about them.
As well as the moral and spiritual values taught in the education system, there are values taught by the education system. For example, admissions policies display how we value individuals and how we evaluate success. If one of the things that we now value is parental choice, I hope that that will be matched by parental obligation. If there is to be emphasis on the right to education, I hope that that will be matched by the responsibilities of education.
At present we are adopting a culture which encourages us to think that we are right to select what we want for our children. Well, if we are to have that, it needs to be matched by an expectation that when we are educated we have a responsibility to society as a whole which has provided us with that education. One of the values which needs to be taught in schools is responsibility for others and responsibility to the whole of society. Education is a public service, and its products should have a sense of public service.
In the gracious Speech reference is made to "diversity in education." We have to ask: what does that mean in relation to the particular matter of grant-maintained status? As I see it, there are various options before the Government. One is that grant-maintained status shall be available to a proportion of schools in the system, thus being one strand in a varied pattern. Another is to see grant-maintained status as the desired pattern for all schools. If I heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor correctly, he indicated that that is the desired option of the Government. If so, I hope that it will be explicitly and clearly stated.
What would be precarious is adopting neither of those options but groping forward on a series of ad hoc decisions. The evidence appears to be that if in any one locality more than a majority of schools become grant maintained, then the remainder of the schools will wish to follow suit for fear of being disadvantaged. Moreover, if those later applications are not to be granted for no clearly stated reasons or criteria, then I believe that we are likely to have not so much a diversity but a muddle.
Another area awaiting clarification—and I look forward to reading the White Paper in this connection—is the role of local education authorities or their successors. The more grant-maintained schools there

279
are, the more urgent is the need for a coherent management structure. Otherwise we shall have not a system of education managed within a strategic plan, but competing independent businesses at the mercy of market forces. That may work well for producing washing machines; but it is not suited for a crucial public service which must provide for all children wherever they are. In my view, the advantage of local education authorities has been (whatever their failings) that they have been democratically accountable and publicly accessible. A grant-maintained funding council with satellite committees will have neither of those facilities: it will be neither democratically accountable nor publicly accessible.
Further, if local education authorities are to be retained in essentially their present form but are to have primarily the function of producers of advisory services, I wonder whether it will be possible to attract people of real calibre to serve on those bodies. If they have no realistic function to fulfil, the risk is that we shall not have highly qualified people wishing to discharge those responsibilities. Wisdom and experience surely point towards having a strategic planning responsibility remaining with democratically accountable and publicly accessible bodies. In this connection we look forward to knowing the Government's intentions.
Perhaps I may briefly add one more point. With all the changes which are still before us and which are being implemented now, I am concerned that the disadvantaged areas may become further disadvantaged. I have a particular concern in this area. I am thinking now of those emotionally disturbed children with behavioural problems. Our experience is that children with these particular special needs are at risk for a cluster of reasons—partly because of the growth of a more selective admissions policy in some schools, partly because of the increasing closure of special schools meeting the specialist needs of these children and also because of the likelihood that a number of schools will increase the number of exclusions because of their need to produce satisfactory league tables. Without these factors coming into play, there is already an indication that a number of these people are not able to find the costly facilities that they need if they are to become attractive members of society. I think of one school in particular with which I have had connections and which is having to close for these reasons.
I welcome both diversity and choice in education. However, I hope that they will not be allowed to undermine the system that we have but will enrich it. I hope too that there will remain an educational system that provides high quality education for all young people whoever and wherever they are.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am very glad to be following the right reverend Prelate for two reasons. First, since he and I disagreed during the passage of the Charities Act on what should happen to church schools which had become village halls, he has, I
280
know, in an open-minded way been trying to help to solve that problem. The second reason is that I too wish to deal with the question of special education.
Before I go further, I should like to add my admiration for the two maiden speeches we have heard today. My noble friend Lord Lucas packed as much deep thought into five minutes as I have ever heard in your Lordships' House. As for my noble friend Lord Rix, there is so much that I could say, but I must acknowledge the debt that MENCAP owes to him as an administrator, a broadcaster, a fund-raiser and one who is expert at imposing himself on the gentlemen of Whitehall.
I turn now to people with special learning difficulties—if the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, will forgive the expression. I know of no other. I refer especially to those who are mentally handicapped. There is a tendency, as the right reverend Prelate said, on the part of local education authorities to minimise special education. They do so by claiming that children with learning difficulties can benefit by being taught in ordinary schools. That is called integration. Normally integration is a very fine thing to have. But it is seriously misleading in this context and can have very bad consequences.
The reality is that most children with learning difficulties are miserable in ordinary schools if their special needs cannot be met, and generally they cannot be. That is my first complaint. It follows from that that special schools should be increased, not reduced in numbers, as the right reverend Prelate so rightly pointed out. They should certainly not be closed down for outside reasons such as is happening to a special school in Huntingdon at present. "Ah but", the local education authorities say, "what are we to do? There are not enough teachers specially trained for teaching people with learning difficulties. There are not enough to enable us to run these special schools". That may well be so in many places, but it means that steps should be taken to train more of them.
About 25 years ago, on behalf of MENCAP, I was involved in helping to establish the first college for training teachers of mentally handicapped children. It was situated on the outskirts of Birmingham and Her Majesty the Queen Mother, our royal patron, travelled all the way to Birmingham especially to open it. There ought to be more such schools, and I hope that the Government will give this matter serious consideration.
I should like to mention a particular problem within that general problem and that is the shortage of speech therapists. I suggest that, independently of any teacher training college of the kind that I have mentioned, steps should now be taken somehow to increase the number of speech therapists, because that is one of the major problems.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Blatch is now Minister of State for Education. She was open-minded and most admirable in discharging her duties at the Department of the Environment. She has immense experience of local education as a former leader of Cambridgeshire County Council. I am truly sorry that I, too, have to apologise to her and to your

281
Lordships for being unable to remain here much longer as I also have an outside engagement of long standing.
There is another quite separate matter that I wish to mention following on from the speech of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has listened to so much of this debate. He knows my anxieties about the way we legislate, which many of your Lordships and branches of the professions also share. I much admire the achievements of Conservative Governments in the past 13 years. But I am sorry to have to say that during that time most Acts of Parliament have been longer, more detailed, more complex, more incomprehensible and more inaccessible in the sense that the legal profession has found it difficult to find when various parts of such Acts come into operation.
Indeed, last year the Bar Council—perhaps due to the initiative of my noble friend Lord Alexander when he was chairman a little earlier—appointed a working party under Mr. James Goudie, QC, to study the whole question of the inaccessibility and incomprehensibility of the law. The Lord Chancellor has had the report and I hope that something will be done about it.
We should not entirely blame the parliamentary draftsmen. I have always maintained that they are more sinned against than sinning. Ministers are constitutionally responsible for the Bills that they lay before Parliament. Also, a heavy responsibility lies on those, mostly middle-ranking civil servants, who instruct parliamentary draftsmen. They do so over-zealously. However, it is clear from the gracious Speech that we can expect rather less legislation this Session. That is a very good thing. It gives all concerned a better chance to improve its quality. I hope that at a later stage we may go more thoroughly into this matter.
On this occasion the only point I wish to stress is that we must express, get the draftsmen to express and get Ministers to agree to express the intentions of Parliament so that they do not have merely to be inferred from a complicated mass of detail.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, when I read in a university annual report, in the research record of one department that "Dr. Bloggs continues to act as Examiner for this and Consultant for that", I knew what it meant. It meant that Dr. Bloggs had not published anything the previous year, did not have two ideas to rub together, and was a prime candidate for redundancy, retirement and the early bath.
Even so, when I read in the gracious Speech,
"My Government will continue to work to raise standards at all levels of education",
I knew that there would be no legislation and nothing new in that department. New thinking in education in the gracious Speech comes in the words:
"A Bill will be introduced to extend choice and diversity in education".
Some of us on these Benches were a little surprised that the two resounding substantives "choice" and
282
"diversity" should be the only two singled out for future development in legislation. Perhaps I may direct your Lordships' attention to them for a few moments, together with the third substantive implacably implied by the first two, the word "selection".
Was I alone in detecting a tone of mild concern in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, when he seconded the Motion for a humble Address? The noble Lord said:
"Sometimes one feels, with a multiplicity of quangos like the National Curriculum Council and the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council, that there are too many cooks spoiling the curriculum".—[Official Report, 6/5/92; col. 16.]
There are an awful lot of cooks in this kitchen, and the broth is gravely in peril. There will need to be more cooks and more bottle washers if we are to pursue that double-headed monster of choice and diversity so assiduously, so relentlessly. I should not go so far as to say that we need more choice and diversity in education like a fish needs a bicycle, but I suggest that those two concepts are not the nation's highest priority at the present time. That pre-eminence should be given to two other concepts: standards and quality. As the proverb puts it,
"There's small choice among rotten apples",
and if standards in education are not raised, and raised rapidly, all the choice that can be created will avail us nothing.
Let me take first the issue of diversity in education, whatever that means. One might be forgiven for thinking that, as a nation, we are not short of it. There are independent boys' schools, independent girls' schools, independent mixed schools, private schools, grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, comprehensive schools of every sort and size, city technology colleges, Anglican schools, Quaker schools, Roman Catholic schools and convents; and we are now promised specialist schools and magnet schools, whatever they may be. Are we really in desperate need of more? If there are 17 different brands of baked beans on the supermarket shelf instead of 14 is the nation incomparably the richer?
Two things are quite clear: first, not every town, district or county is going to be able to provide that cornucopia of diversity. Few schools are going to "specialise" in pure mathematics, advanced physics or systems engineering because there are not enough able teachers of those subjects to go around and they are expensive subjects to teach. So provision will be patchy, random, and no more secure than the career patterns of a small number of gifted teachers who are perpetually up for sale in what is for them a seller's market.
Secondly, is it likely that many, if any, schools will specialise in teaching children with special needs? There is not a prestigious market in special needs. There are many able, devoted and brilliantly innovative teachers of what used to be called the "remedial groups", but there are no special pay scales for teachers of the neediest children, and I know of no government incentive schemes to persuade schools to specialise in that area.

283
The impetus in specialist schools will be towards recruiting the cleverest children and giving them every possible advantage. That is no bad thing in itself, but it leaves unsolved the problem of how we educate the 50 per cent. of the school population which is, by definition, below average. Unless "diversity" can include real educational opportunity for those many children who do not display strong abilities and aptitudes it will be no more than froth and bubbles. It will offer nothing to nourish and sustain the majority of children.
The same is true of the other shibboleth in the gracious Speech, the word which the Government so revere—"choice". I find it difficult to reconcile my mind to the degree of pre-eminence which the Government have for so long afforded to that concept of choice. After (was it?) the 1987 election I remember that Mrs. Thatcher's first reaction in a television interview to the responsibilities facing her new government was not, "We must give the people a better quality of life"; it was—if I quote her correctly—"We must give them more choice". It is a nonsense to say that the present thrust of Government thinking on secondary education will give greater parental choice. In a comprehensive system parents can, at least in theory and usually in practice, choose their preferred school and appeal against rejection. Under any selective system it is not the parent who chooses, it is the school. Parental choice is irrelevant, as the parents of any child who has been rejected are all too bitterly aware. In any selective system parents are free to apply; they are not free to choose.
Of course, rich parents, highly motivated parents, and clever parents will always be able to beat the system, whatever the system may be. You can always "get on your bike" and move to where the schools are better. But, once again, the problem lies with the education of that great mass of children who lack those advantages. The hungry sheep look up and will not be fed. They ask for bread and the Government will give them a stone. Their education will not be a matter of choice, it will be a matter of chance.
Diversity and choice are debatable benefits and not pre-eminent priorities. At the very heart of our secondary education stands the issue of selection at the age of 11. Opting-out is merely the first step on the slippery slope back to some form of the discredited 11-plus examination. Secondary education is either comprehensive or it is not. One cannot be partly comprehensive just as one cannot be partly pregnant. Opting-out creates a divided system, and in a divided system admission to the most desirable schools means pupils being selected by those schools, and the only fair way to do that is by open, competitive examination. That is a return to the dismal system which obtained before 1965 in which a majority of the nation's children were branded as failures before they even reached their 'teens.
When the then Secretary of State for Education, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, was asked, in the months before the general election, whether grant-maintained schools would be able to apply for "a change of character" and transform themselves into selective grammar schools his answers were ambiguous,
284
ingenuous and sometimes ingenious. According to Mr. Clarke, the Government's policy amounted to little more than "wait and see". According to Mr. Clarke, if school governors made a convincing case for a change then the Government would graciously accede to the desires and petitions of its faithful parents; but the Government had no general view of their own as to whether it would be better to have a comprehensive or a selective system.
One can readily see why Mr. Clarke's position should be appropriate for the Conservative Party before an election, but it will not do for a government responsible for the nation's education for anything up to the next five years. As Mr. Stuart Maclure has recently written,
"There seems a strange reluctance to acknowledge that one person's grammar school means three other people's secondary modern schools. That, after all, is the crux of the problem".
I wish to ask the Minister to state whether or not the Government support a return to selection for secondary education by competitive examination at the age of 11-plus. I am not so naive as to imagine that she will give me a one-word "yes" or "no" answer, but the forthcoming White Paper must surely clarify the Government's position on this central issue. Then we can openly debate government policy and the many other options currently being canvassed, some of them remarkably radical.
Professor Tim Brighouse of the University of Keele is reported as having advised the Labour Party to espouse total privatisation of state schooling, with a massive expansion of places at private schools paid for out of public funds. As an academic, I find that that is not a self-evidently absurd suggestion and it seems to have received the backing of the headmaster of Haileybury College, himself a past chairman of the Headmasters' Conference. Can the Minister tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government regard the total privatisation of state schooling as,
"a consummation devoutly to be wish'd"?
If not, why not?
The issue of selection is supremely important. A recent first leader in The Times—a newspaper not famous for championing the Labour Party—sums up my concern very clearly and briefly:
"The reintroduction of 11-plus selection is a hugely significant policy, the direct result of the government's attempted 'nationalisation' of secondary schooling in England and Wales. Of all the options for state secondary school reform it is probably the worst, and certainly a colossal gamble. It appeared nowhere in the Tory manifesto, and should not come about by stealth or terminological confusion. Mr. Patten should say clearly whether he believes in it or not".
My mind returns to the gently wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, when he pleaded the case for "a period of consolidation" to permit teachers to build on what he sees as,
"the real achievements which have taken place".
We on these Benches maintain that, more important than diversity, more important than choice, more important than selection at 11-plus is the necessity to raise standards of provision and achievement and to provide the highest possible quality of education for all our children. We believe that this is most likely to be achieved by a comprehensive system, administered

285
by well resourced local education authorities with knowledge of their local communities and accountable to them.
It may be that we are wrong. There may be a better way. I, for one, would take a great deal of convincing that such is the case, but it is up to Her Majesty's Government now, in the White Paper, to put forward a more persuasive proposal. The Government cannot go on shrugging their shoulders, shilly-shallying, content to wait and see, abnegating their responsibility for providing a framework of clear proposals for the future of secondary education in this country. The Government must make up their mind.
We, of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, are ready to oppose, eager to engage, willing to debate. But you cannot argue with an absence; you cannot oppose a jelly.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, until the fifteenth speaker in this debate the subject on which I was going to speak had hardly been touched. Then the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford spoke about education, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, evidently read my mind as I sat here. However, I shall permit myself to go over the same ground, trying to pick out certain points which were omitted or which would not be harmed by amplification.
We have the problem that we are confronted with a school system which is about to suffer a series of changes and which very much echoes a largely discredited system: the 11-plus system. That is not because grammar schools were so disastrous; indeed, everyone assures me that they were wonderful, that everyone who came out of them was great, that the sport was better, and that exam results were better. It is because everyone seems consistently to ignore that secondary modern schools went with the grammar schools. That is the crux of the problem. We had second-rate schools because we had selection. That fact does not seem to be considered. I have never heard anyone tell me how wonderful the secondary modern system was and how it turned out so many successes. I remember being told that when someone reached university or a higher education course from a secondary modern school, it was worthy of mention in the local paper. If that is not a condemnation of the system, I do not know what is.
We are also confronted by a situation where the Government have brought in the national curriculum. It has been played around with over the past few years and has reached a workable level. Now they say that we shall have specialist schools. Why bother with the national curriculum if we are to have specialist schools? For example, there has been a great deal of criticism of the A-level examination and the fact that we specialise too early. The national curriculum means that there is a good foundation to go on to specialisation, but the A-levels look ready for reform. However, we are now saying that we will get rid of the
286
basis of general knowledge and general preparation so that specialisation is being enforced at an even earlier stage.
There is also the fact that under the successor system of the comprehensive schools, as and when introduced, children changed over at the age of 11. That meant that the change came when the child was still very young. I cannot remember the name, but I believe that the mathematician who carried out the initial testing on the 11-plus tripartite exam system faked his information or it was certainly questionable. The age of 11 is very young. The potential for children not showing their best at that age is massive. A child may not show up well in certain subjects for a variety of reasons: the easiest is perhaps that children did not like the teachers in certain subjects at their previous schools. They may not have liked the way in which a certain type of history was taught, or technology, science, English or maths. That is one area of disaster.
We have heard much about special needs in education. As your Lordships undoubtedly know by now, since I have bored the House with the subject often enough, I am dyslexic. I have done a considerable amount of work at the Dyslexia Institute. The number of undiscovered dyslexics in our schools is still high. What happens to those children when they are confronted with a test, even if it is only partly written, especially since assessments are more often becoming written tests? One can see how problems would be compounded if children take the entrance to a selective school on a series of previous assessments.
There are a great many problems here. Can the Government be more consistent? At the higher end of the spectrum we have just decided that polytechnics should have at least the same status as universities. It would make sense if the state-run schools were at least all playing on the same playing field. What is good enough for degrees should surely be good enough for GCSEs.
Effectively, we have a situation which is muddled and confused. We do not know what we are doing. I join the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in saying that we would like to know exactly what we are dealing with. At present, we do not. I ask the Government whether they have any plans to stop the creation of secondary modern schools or some successor body? What can prevent that? If the majority of schools are allowed to opt out and become specialists there is bound to be a well for children such as those whose parents have not pushed them hard enough, those who have had a rough time at school or those with domestic problems and similar difficulties.
The children who have had problems will end up in schools where they are not expected to do well. I have never heard the Government contradict the fact that people live up to expectations. Children in such schools will learn that very quickly. We can take the example of the old secondary modern schools. I believe that older Members of your Lordships' House will confirm that the secondary moderns were originally introduced as an equal but different option. They were not. No one has pretended that that was the case.

287
If we leave a number of comprehensives to sweep up those who are left over if such a highly selective, complicated and finicky system is allowed to develop, we shall create schools which may well be worse than those we got rid of a few years ago.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, it is not my intention to pursue that aspect of our debate but to return to social matters. First, I want to say that there are several aspects of a society which one would want to look at in order to assess its level of civilisation. For example, do its members enjoy freedom under the law? Are its arts flourishing? Does the society provide adequately for those in need? No doubt there would be many other aspects. Two which would interest me greatly are the degree of lawlessness and the gap between the haves and the have-nots. I should need to know the developing trend in each of those areas and whether there was any evidence that the two were connected.
I need spend no time on the first in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has already said with such authority and such damning statistics. As to the second—the income gap —it is of course productive of some satisfaction to note that not only has the standard of living of everyone been increasing but also the spread of incomes both between the extremes of riches and unbearable poverty and over society as a whole has been improving, admittedly too slowly but nevertheless consistently over the years since the beginning of the century.
However, over the last decade that trend first faltered and was then reversed. Nobody is proposing absolute equality of incomes. That is neither desirable nor achievable in a free society. However, while there is still such a long way to go that reversal of the trend is both unacceptable and dangerous. It is unacceptable to have hundreds of our citizens sleeping rough on the streets. It is unacceptable to have thousands homeless. It is unacceptable to have millions unemployed. Moreover, all those spell danger for the stability of our society, for the have-nots see themselves not only as denied a fair share of the general improvement in living standards hut, where they suffer homelessness and long-term unemployment, they naturally feel rejected by society and they say, "If society does not care for me, why should I care for society?"
The Prime Minister has spoken in very sincere terms of his desire to see improvement. I am sure that the present Government will wish to restore the previous trend towards a fairer and more stable society. It is in that connection that I want to refer to two matters which became very clear to me during the six years that I spent as the full-time chairman of the relevant Royal Commission.
The first is that, if one does nothing, the situation gets worse. One has to do quite a lot to maintain the status quo and a great deal more to improve on it. As one's common sense would lead one to expect, in a moving situation it is natural that those who are able to improve their financial position, whether through education, connections, the ownership of capital or for any other reason, will quickly outstrip those who are not similarly endowed.
288
If this were an economic debate I should at this point have much to say about methods of taxation and the choice of priorities in public expenditure. All that must be left for another day. However, I should perhaps underline now that the issue is not which methods should be adopted to increase national income for, as I have indicated, if no special steps are taken to affect the play of the free market, those at the top will secure a share of that increase which is wholly disproportionate to the share gained by those much lower down. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury reminded us over the weekend, the rise in the average pay of the British executive over the past decade was between 11 and 24 times the rise in that of a skilled manual worker. I add only that an employed skilled manual worker is himself fortunate by comparison with those well below him on the income scale.
The second matter is the principle of equality of opportunity, upon which the Government appear to be basing their philosophy. That is a fine and necessary principle, but it is quite insufficient for present purposes. It is indeed only meaningful to the extent that all those to whom the opportunity is presented are capable of making use of it. To provide equality of opportunity as between the strong and the weak, as between the well educated and the under-educated, as between the able and the disabled, as between the well connected and the unconnected, as between the hale and the halt, is self-evidently inadequate. To be fair to the Government, they do not believe it to be sufficient either, for a safety net is provided through which no one is expected to fall. However, the reversal of that hundred year-old trend to which I have referred means that the safety net will prove ever more inadequate. It is already developing holes through which many are falling.
The gracious Speech refers to the Government's decision to improve the social security system with sustained emphasis on those groups with the greatest need. I have made clear two particular matters which need to be addressed in implementing that decision. I am also sure that we are all on common ground in wishing to strengthen the stability of our society, remembering in particular that poverty and the feeling of rejection were shown to be major elements contributing to the riots in Liverpool and Brixton. It is in the light of those events, and in the blazing light of Los Angeles, that I ask the Government to give urgent consideration to the necessary improvement.
6.58 p.m.
Lord MeColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I too should like to add my congratulations to the two brilliant maiden speakers on their splendid speeches, which I enjoyed very much.
One of the features of the parliamentary world which puzzles me is the way some politicians will make statements about the National Health Service which are not based on facts and truth. They justify that by describing it as acceptable political knockabout. If one political party accuses another of pursuing policies which result in a fourfold increase in the death rate of pheasants, one can regard that as good knockabout

289
political behaviour. But when false statements are repeatedly made which denigrate the National Health Service, quite naturally it upsets patients and demoralises staff. I should like to examine the subject not from the point of view of whether it does any harm to the Government but whether it is right for politicians to engage in systematic propaganda which quite unnecessarily frightens vulnerable and defenceless patients, who are often frail and elderly.
For instance, some politicians accuse the Government of being responsible for the closure of 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of hospital beds in the past 13 years. But what any fair minded person would immediately want to know when confronted with that accusation is whether that was an isolated event over the past 13 years or whether it was part of a trend over a much longer period. The answer is that it is part of a trend over a much longer period.
To be precise, over the past 27 years there has been a steady reduction in the number of available hospital beds, irrespective of which government have been in power. There are many reasons for that. For instance, it is now recognised that half of general surgical operations can be done on a day case basis. That is now strongly advocated by the Royal College of Surgeons, because it is the best way to treat those patients. Only 30 years ago patients who had had a heart attack were put on complete bed rest in hospital for six weeks. We now know that that practice is dangerous. Prolonged bed rest results in all kinds of problems, such as thrombosis in the veins of the leg or pneumonia. Nowadays people who have had a heart attack are in hospital for only a few days.
Beds can be dangerous places. Therefore old people are quite reluctant to go into hospital. One lady of 93 who consulted me refused to go into hospital for a major operation. At her request we agreed to do the operation at her home under local anaesthetic on a Saturday morning. The only problem we had was that the bed was so low that I had to kneel to do the operation, which, on reflection, I thought was probably the right attitude to adopt. Another difficulty was that, as she lived on her own, she had to have her young daughter of 74 come and spend the night with her. Many more hospital beds in fact could reasonably be closed now, according to a recent Audit Commission report. So the accusation made against the Government about beds is simply not founded on facts, figures or truth.
Moving along the spectrum of scare stories, one comes inevitably to Jennifer's ear. The Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition was seen in a party political broadcast on television with a young actress who had acute pain in her ear. The broadcast pretended that the real Jennifer had been kept waiting for nine or 10 months for an operation for the insertion of grommets to relieve the pain in her ear. That was a false story. Children with acute pain in their ear have infection in the middle ear and today require antibiotics. That is what they get. Children on waiting lists waiting for grommets are having difficulty hearing. Anyway there is certainly no need for them to wait for that length of time. Should politicians misuse Jennifer's ear in
290
television propaganda? It was a very unhappy and harmful experience for the whole of that unfortunate family.
Over the past few years there have been many statements—I regret to say some of them have been made in your Lordships' House—that the NHS is about to collapse. In particular, it was specifically forecast to collapse on 1st April 1991 when, it was said, the NHS would be plunged into chaos as a result of the reforms. That simply was not true. Politicians still try to justify that kind of behaviour, however, though many apprehensive patients and their relatives are frightened quite unnecessarily by such false predictions. Other statements were made elsewhere to the effect that patients on waiting lists were dying. When those stories were investigated, it was found that they were not true. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, "A lie is half way round the world before you can do anything to correct it."
I come to the far end of the spectrum of shroud waving. A full page advertisement about the NHS was published in national newspapers before the election. It referred to the death of a child several months earlier and stated:
"Georgina Norris died because the NHS is short of money. Meanwhile the Tories are cutting taxes to keep their election hopes alive".
The child did not die through lack of money. The story simply was not true.
I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that that kind of callous exploitation of parents grieving for their dead child has no place in a civilised country. Is it not time to stop that kind of bullying of vulnerable, frightened people? Is it not about time that we said that the NHS, with all its faults, provides an extremely good service, especially for the acutely ill? Of course mistakes are made and unfortunate things happen but do we not have an obligation to try to put things into perspective?
Last year 7.5 million patients were treated, 6.3 million as in-patients and 1.2 million day cases. When one considers it, what goes wrong is a very small percentage of the whole. There is never room for complacency in the National Health Service, but I suggest that we should not tolerate the exploitation of the sick with sick propaganda. Surely it is time to stop treating the NHS as the plaything of the politicians. Can we not return to the 1960s and 1970s, when there was a consensus on the difficult policies which are inevitable in running a body as large as the national health service?
In 1970, when the Labour Government introduced cash limits into the hospital service and the concept of moving NHS resources out of London, both measures were unpopular; but both measures were supported by the Conservative Opposition. Today, London faces a difficult future as hard decisions will have to be made about the excess of hospitals and beds. As noble Lords are aware, the population of inner London over the past 50 years has fallen from 5 million to about half that figure. But London still has 70 per cent. more beds than the average for England. Will the Labour Opposition resume the support which it gave to that

291
movement when Labour was in government? Will it support the present Administration in the hard decisions which will have to be made?
Sir Bernard Tomlinson is currently making a study of the problems of London's hospitals. He is a distinguished professor of medicine who proved an excellent chairman of the Northern Health Region. He has no axe to grind. We hope that the Labour Party will listen sympathetically to what he has to say.
The reforms of the National Health Service are here to stay, and according to the patients, are in fact making a big difference to them. They find the hospitals cleaner and more friendly, with the delays in out-patient clinics very significantly reduced. Would it not be reasonable to suggest that all politicians could make a significant contribution to the health service by making sure that the reforms continue to improve the service?
In conclusion, perhaps I may make a special plea that we drop the political knockabout in the National Health Service and focus our efforts on securing for all NHS patients the best possible service.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, as the evening progresses it becomes more difficult to apologise for the fact that one cannot be here at the close of the debate. However, I am afraid that I have to do so. I have a long-standing commitment that I cannot escape. I apologise to the noble Baroness and to the House.
I wish to spend a few moments talking about social problems that I consider relevant to the Government's ambition to lead us toward a classless society. Perhaps I may read an extract from the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on European Communities. In the 14th Report on Young People in the European Communities, it states:
"The Committee concludes that there exists in many Member States a small but significant group of especially disadvantaged young people who form an isolated `marginalised' clement of society living in very deprived conditions; some have become anti-social or criminal".
One cannot have a classless society with such an underclass. Please believe me, my Lords; such an underclass exists in our society. If any of you do not believe that, I can prove it.
I do not need to remind your Lordships of recent events in Los Angeles which give a chilling warning of what can happen if one allows a substantial group of young people to grow up alienated and with a feeling of being excluded from the good things enjoyed by the remainder of their fellow countrymen. I believe—and I should like to persuade your Lordships—that any action that we can take to reduce the number of such alienated and disillusioned young people in this country will save the taxpayer a great deal of money in the long run, not only the enormous costs of dealing with riots but also the cost of police and probation and custodial services throughout the lives of those young people. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, spoke eloquently about building more prisons. I would rather reduce the prison population; and I believe that that is what we can do.
292
What can be done? What is the true nature of this problem? One refers to poverty, yes—but poverty is only a symptom. The underlying disease is one of alienation, a feeling of exclusion from society, of not being able or allowed to belong. They are like people standing outside a door excluded from the heat and warmth within. Every now and then we open the door and give them a handout but we do not let them in. Such handouts do not solve the problem.
Why do those people find it difficult to win their own way back into society? It is mainly because they are under-educated, under-trained and undermotivated—under-motivated because they do not believe that they can achieve. It all starts with education, but long before school. A child who does not have love and security in the first five years of his life is likely to underperform at school. That serves to reinforce his own low opinion of himself, and that leads to disruptive behaviour and truanting. The child is under-educated when he reaches primary school and eventually when aged 16.
Parents can do more harm to a child than anyone else because they are the people whom a child instinctively admires and loves most. However, it would be wrong to blame the parents, because the parents are themselves in most cases the products of just such families. We are left with what I can only call a cycle of inadequate parenting. I do not say that in a spirit of criticism. It is a cycle that we have to try in some way to break. How can young people who have had no experience of a happy, secure family life themselves establish a secure and happy home? How can a young person who has had no satisfactory role model of a father or mother in his or her life become a satisfactory father or mother? We have to break that cycle. It is a task we must undertake. It is not easy. I simply mention one or two factors. There are many more.
First, I wish to refer to the under-fives. Experts tell me, and have convinced me, that it is essential that we have a nationwide provision for the under-fives available to all, including those who cannot pay. The availability of crèches and playschools not only gives respite to hard pressed and inexperienced mothers; it can do much more. Early diagnoses of children's problems can make for earlier and easier cures. Provision for under-fives can pick up the children who are being inadequately parented and give them some measure of love and security. It can teach them that it is possible to have a loving and trusting relationship with caring adults. It can also provide counselling and help to mothers and fathers when they are willing to accept it and help them to learn the skills of parenting.
In many of our primary schools the teachers are overburdened with the problems of the pupils and their parents. It is a job for which they are not trained and which interferes with their work as teachers. There is a need for real support, for schools outreach—a counselling service to support parents and children.
At secondary school level it is really too late. By then we are talking about remedial work. By 11 years children who have not had love and security at home will already be entrenched in a low self image and will

293
often be at odds with authority and adult society as a whole. Support, counselling and outreach can also help. The voluntary sector, to which I shall refer, has an important part to play.
The transition from school (or truancy) to work or training is a crucial time in the life of a young person. Those whose education has been interrupted by truanting need special help. Young people who do not have confidence in themselves need to be persuaded that they have a role in society, that they can succeed in training. When they go into training and slip and fall they need someone to motivate them to pick themselves up and try again.
I hope that the Government will stop their programme of cutting back on training funds, especially for young people with disabilities. Is it not strange that our society expects the taxpayer to contribute significant sums to provide hostel accommodation and tutorial support and counselling to 18 year-old university students yet provides no help to a 16 year-old who has been thrown out of his home in an inner city.
I believe that the voluntary sector has a big role to play. Young people do not see the voluntary sector as part of the system. They see volunteers as giving their time freely and therefore being less tainted. Alienated young people find it easier to discover that there can be adults in the world who care about them without wishing to exploit them. But it is unreasonable to expect charitable contributions to pick up the full cost of a national problem. Pound for pound funding by government would be money saved in the long run.
The most reverend Primate referred to the importance of a child choosing the right parents. Is it too much to hope to see a change in the attitude of our society to the procreation of children? I am not talking about sexual morality; with the advent of reliable contraception that is a separate issue. But should it not be an accepted tenet of our society that no man or woman should consciously or carelessly participate in the conception of a child unless they have at least made a genuine commitment to love and support that child for the next 18 years? Is it crying for the moon to suggest that we might work to change public attitudes? After all, stranger changes have taken place. I can remember the time when green was merely a colour. The Government have persuaded the public to accept the good sense of wearing seat belts. They have even reduced the smoking of cigarettes. Could the Government be persuaded to promote the concept that a child is for love and that a child is for life?
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on his maiden speech. Speaking as a director of social services and a social worker I recognise how much I and my staff owe MENCAP for the work which it did and the help that it gave to us. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucas. He has caught the spirit of many people. During the general election many people said to me, "I wish I knew the facts about the National
294
Health Service. I wish I knew exactly how the money is spent." My noble friend has caught the spirit of many people in this country.
I seek information about services for children and young persons in regard to the measures contained in the gracious Speech. It states:
"My Government will give priority to improving public services through the Citizen's Charter".
It further states:
"My Government will continue to work to raise standards at all levels of education, to promote vocational training for young people".
The Government passed a most outstanding Act; the Children Act 1989, which was implemented in October 1990. Much good practice is flowing from that Act. I and my colleagues are glad that Her Majesty's Government have appointed an extra Minister in the Department of Health to oversee reform. We understand that my honourable friend Dr. Brian Mawhinney is to be the Health Minister and that Mr. Yeo, as Parliamentary Under-Secretary, is to take charge of personal social services on a day-to-day basis. That will be interesting! We are grateful that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege is at the department thus forming a strong team. We are grateful in particular to have my noble friend Lady Blatch summing up the debate because a number of my questions relate not only to health and social security but to education.
With diffidence but with conviction perhaps I may submit an agenda to Her Majesty's Government. It relates to the gaps and overlaps in legislation and administration. How are they to be met and dealt with? What machinery will be available? My question relates to all departments. Where the legislation and policies of one department of state conflict with another, what machinery exists for resolving the difficulties? What machinery exists for co-ordinating policies? I know that the answer usually given is that civil servants and Ministers talk to each other and have interdepartmental meetings. Those meetings appear to me to be cosy affairs out of which nothing is forthcoming.
Perhaps I may give several examples. The Children Act 1989 lays down that the welfare of the child is paramount and that parents have responsibility for their children. Part III of the Act lays a duty on local authority social services departments to meet the needs of children up to eight years in their areas. That conflicts with the non-implementation by local authorities of the Education Act 1981; the Department of Education appears to have taken no action for nine years. That Education Act deals with the education of children who have disabilities and who are in need of special education.
In addition school non-attendance rates have risen along with the number of children excluded from school as a result of that behaviour. In many areas the non-school attenders are registered as attending school although they have been excluded. They are marked in the register as having attended after receiving perhaps one hour's teaching per week, possibly in a church hall. A psychiatrist has written to tell me that she sees children for one hour per week. Such children otherwise roam the streets. How under

295
such circumstances can Part III of the Children Act be implemented by local services? How can it be said that the welfare of the child is paramount? Research has shown that non-school attendance is cause for great anxiety.
Another example, cited by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and other noble Lords is that of young people who have been in care in a children's home or a foster home. They are deprived of income support unless they are attending school or a training course or are employed. The training systems in this country are inadequate for such children. I have spoken to many employers who say that while they wish to help children on those courses the situation is impossible. That point was also made by the right reverend Prelate. Those children then become the responsibility of the social services. However, had they been properly looked after that would not be the case. If they are older children they may sleep rough and be subjected to approaches by prostitutes and men with drugs. Ultimately, they become the responsibility of the Home Office, which is a most expensive affair.
There is also confusion in the departments about the education and care of children under five years of age, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. The Department of Education has an increasing responsibility for the education of such children. Under Part III of the Act the Department of Health has responsibility for children with special needs, in particular those under the age of five. Believe it or not, the Home Office has responsibility for children under five because it has the responsibility of the Equal Opportunities Commission. With three departments responsible for children under the age of five I wonder how the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, believes that there can be one policy for all children in this country. I was grateful that the noble Lord spoke as he did about children under the age of five. It is not as though no research has been carried out. Good research has been carried out by the National Children's Bureau, the Institute of Education and the Coram Foundation. However, there is no coordinated policy for the young children of this country.
There are gaps as regards health. The child guidance service is closing down throughout the country. The service consists of a psychologist employed by the Department of Education, a psychiatrist who comes under the Department of Health and a social worker who comes under the social services department. Therefore, when the child guidance service closes down, nobody takes over that responsibility. That is proving to be a very disturbing factor.
An extremely worrying report has been published on young people entering residential psychiatric care. It was commissioned by the Children's Society. I shall not go into detail but the report shows that a number of children, given proper preventive help, would not have needed psychiatric care. It is an extremely worrying report.
Is the health of children being improved by the fact that children are no longer provided with school meals? A report has just been published which shows
296
that the health of children is impaired because a policy was adopted that children should no longer have school meals.
I make a plea to the Ministers responsible for sport and education to co-operate with the other ministries to provide the wherewithal for games for children at school and for adolescents—and that is very important—after they have left school.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the points made by my noble friend Lord Renton on residential care for children. We await the Howe Report on residential staff in children's homes. There is great confusion as to how to deal with children with special needs of an emotional nature. First, the Department of Education deals with what it calls maladjusted children who are not learning properly. Those children go to schools for maladjusted children. Such schools are closing. I have a report which shows the number that are closing. What is happening to the children who were at those schools?
There are therapeutic centres which deal with deeply disturbed children, children who have been sexually abused and children who have committed really horrendous crimes. The Department of Education is responsible for those children. The right reverend Prelate mentioned such a school in Dorset which has closed. That school was dealing with deeply disturbed adolescents. There is no co-ordinated policy involving the Department of Education, the Department of Health and the Home Office. That is sorely needed.
I turn to the question of the public inquiries which have taken place. The Pindown inquiry, the Butler-Sloss report on Cleveland and various other reports have been extremely expensive. The Butler-Sloss report involved a cost of around £1 million and the other reports incurred similar costs. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government will adopt the recommendations of a report to be published in, I believe, September, which recommends that there should be a social work council such as that which exists in the case of doctors and those involved in the legal profession and education. Social workers, like other professionals, should be responsible for their own work. I sincerely hope that the Government will consider seriously that matter so that we need not have those extremely expensive inquiries. They were excellent, but I believe that to be the wrong approach.
Other people have mentioned to me the problem of lack of co-ordination as regards families and children. I have received a letter from the South Bedfordshire Community Health Care Trust which says:
"It is good to know that you are on the alert, at parliamentary level, to discrepancies and to dissonances between the various legislations concerning children".
Strangely enough, I received another letter yesterday from the British Medical Association concerning community care which stated:
"One of the problems is that there are three government Departments involved in implementing the proposals … We believe the Prime Minister should appoint one of the existing Secretaries of State to take immediate responsibility, within the Cabinet, for co-ordinating and implementing the Government's proposals".
I support the British Medical Association in that call.

297
Finally, I return to a plea which I have made before in your Lordships' House. It is addressed to the Treasury. We all agree that the rate of inflation must be reduced, that interest rates must be brought down and that expenditure must be curtailed. However, the Treasury looks at the expenditure of each individual department and does not look at the waste of money which takes place because the expenditure of one department is cut which means that another department must increase its expenditure. For example, the training of social workers has been cut by the Treasury despite the fact that everybody says that that should not be so. We have the worst record in Europe as regards the training of social workers. We provide a two-year course for our social workers whereas other countries in Europe provide a three-year course.
Unless we look after our children and unless we give them a service, they will be an expense to the country later. I beg the Treasury to take an overall view of expenditure instead of looking only at individual departments.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, anyone with a sense of history cherishes the right to speak in your Lordships' House. Of course, anyone with a sense of time is often put off by being on a list of 33 speakers who are subject to no limit on their time or energy. Nevertheless, it is a privilege to have been a part of this debate and to have acknowledged with almost every speaker a depth of knowledge, experience and commitment which is inspiring. It has been a privilege to hear the two maiden speeches. Even though it is late in the day, I join in the general admiration of what they said and the manner in which they said it.
I wish to emphasise two points which have already been stated in the debate. A good starting point is to take the year 1945 when my noble friend Lord Longford was kissing his Sovereign's hand at the beginning of his quite extraordinary period of great service to the people of Great Britain. I was then emerging from a two year training college course at Trinity College, Carmarthen, among that band of classroom teachers who were prepared by the old system—the system of training colleges—which prepared teachers at least for entry to the profession. However, it was not too long before all of us who entered into the profession at that time with that sort of preparation—and we were young because there was a war on and national service lay ahead—realised that the degree of preparation which we had was quite unsuitable for the challenges of the education system from 1945 onwards.
There are so many young people now entering this House. I am delighted about that and I congratulate the new young Front Benchers on both sides of the House. I hope that their contributions will be as happy and successful as those of some of the older ones who have spoken in this debate.
In 1944 we had a great deal of diversity and choice in British education; in fact it ranged from the utterly abysmal to the challenging and good. Those were the
298
days when teachers coming out of training colleges and universities were not paid on their qualifications but by what the local authority decided they would give them. In those days some people who were highly qualified were paid as unqualified teachers—and there were teachers in the classes who were then unqualified.
The year 1945 was a benchmark in the provision of what is marked out in the forthcoming Bill as extended choice and diversity in British education. There are times when those of us on both sides of the House who have served in the classes and staff rooms of Great Britain feel that we should be echoing the slogan, "Let us move back to 1945"; to that national conviction that education of the child is worth paying for; to that national commitment to the establishing of local taxes which we called rates and the idea that national taxes should be extended to the range of teaching and opportunity for all children according to age, aptitude and ability, and not according to some system that gives one type of education to one and one to another.
For 32 years I taught at practically every level of British education from primary school infant intake through to the teaching of teachers. I also took part in what I thought was the most challenging development in British education—the re-education of the teaching stock. From about 1960 onwards we created teachers' centres of excellence where the best of teaching experience could be passed on to the teachers without their having to go through the trauma of leaving home. It is not easy for someone who has begun a career, started a family and taken on a mortgage to step out of that system and take a new bite at the education cherry. That was not easy to do in Britain in those days. I did so in 1962. I only relate my experience because I believe it to be relevant. I took that decision when my daughter was six years of age not because I believed that I was not sufficiently well qualified, despite my then growing experience, but because I felt threatened that my qualifications were not up to those of the young people coming in behind me. Those were the two reasons.
It is always possible for well-intentioned people to begin with a good concept and accidentally to ruin it. I shall pick up one or two themes from the debate this evening. For example, the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, introduced—or at least picked up—the matter of integration of the mentally, physically and socially deprived young people in the education stream. I want to say now, and underscore what I say three times, that I am totally in favour of the idea. To integrate people into the mainstream of education is a perfect social concept. But one must first look at the existing educational pattern into which one wishes to integrate them. One must look into the provisions that they will inherit if they are integrated. One must look at the special schools, at the special provisions under which they may have been educated at this time under the best motivated and best provided authorities.
My daughter is a member of the staff of a school on a campus of mentally, physically and socially deprived people ranging in age from school entry to school leaving and adult. On that campus she has an enriched provision, and she knows it. It is enriched in provision

299
because the education authority so decided. But it has attracted to it an even richer provision because of the work of societies such as that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rix; because of the good will and commitment of social and religious organisations in the community, and in this specific case because of the proximity of a large military base with American and British personnel. The school has been enriched and the whole campus has been enriched by the community commitment to it.
The secondary schools adjacent to the campus are good schools. I taught in one and saw its development through secondary modern to comprehensive and saw the establishment within it of a teacher training centre. Today that school, perhaps for historical reasons although it would be easy to say political ones, is not as well provided for as it was in 1950, 1960 and 1970. As the years go by the provisions cease to come as much as they once did from central and local government, although in general they do. They come much more from boot sales, from raffles and jumble sales held in order to supplement the money needed to provide a similar concept of education for those people today that was provided in the 1950s and early 1960s. As the circumstances of the community change it becomes more and not less essential that those special provisions are maintained. In that regard I underline what has already been said in the debate.
Let me take noble Lords briefly to the matter of provision of courses for teachers already in the system. I believe that if one has committed and dedicated teachers who believe that they lack certain training for the work that they do then we should grasp their careers, strengthen them, and give those teachers all the necessary opportunities. I must say that my own daughter is at this moment on day release from her centre at university, re-equipping herself and adding to her knowledge of the work that she has been doing for some 15 years.
With the best will in the world, sitting on the Bench opposite a Minister can come to a conclusion that it would be in the best interests of everybody if people were integrated into the general school system without making the caveat that I have attempted to make in this debate. I do not question the caring of the Minister opposite. I have spoken of this before and the noble Baroness is aware of my concern in this regard. I say that there must be an assessment of the provision of the local area before one begins to shunt people who need special education into schools that are not equipped to take them.
At best the local authorities have motivated the development of a national pattern of education. Of course, there have been points at which clashes of opinion have occurred in regard to this or that expenditure. But generally speaking education in the hands of the local authority is a credible thing in the history of education in this country. The teachers who have been involved in it for the most part have been dedicated people serving the interests of the children to whom they committed their career. I should hate to see us move into a system where the buzz words become more important than the investigation that ought to precede their implementation.
300
I ask the Minister to assure me that she is as concerned as we are to see that any handicapped child who is to be integrated is integrated into a school that will at least give the same benefits that the child enjoyed in the school from which he or she was moved. If the Minister is not so convinced, I ask her not to close down those specific schools until an alternative exists that measures up to those exacting demands.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, before any other words, my humble addition to the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Lucas and also to the noble Lord, my fellow Yorkshireman, Lord Rix, who has, to my great delight, taken in his title not only an important town a few yards from my home but also an area which I believe is known in London as Whitehall. We are delighted to hear their speeches. I look forward to hearing from both noble Lords very often again.
At this point in the debate my heart begins bleeding for my noble friend Lady Blatch because I know of the task that she faces quite soon in trying to answer a whole range of subjects raised by noble Lords. I hope she will be grateful because I would like to concentrate on one theme alone and one which can fortunately be applied to every subject that we have been discussing this afternoon. It relates to the attention owed, and I hope paid, by the Government to matters which deeply concern every single person who lives in this country.
In last week's gracious Speech I noticed several very encouraging signs that Her Majesty's Government are preparing a very significant move forward in their responsiveness to public anxieties—not, please, involving any more polls of public opinion. The Government should make increasing use of all the means already available to them to form a view of the public need appropriate for the wise construction of their policies and, even more important, for the carrying out of their administrative decisions. I am encouraged that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister seems the very last person likely to listen to anxieties during an election campaign and then to be utterly unresponsive to them in the following five years.
As evidence of this the gracious Speech refers to an extension of choice in education, to the responsiveness of the National Health Service and community care to patients' needs and to the aim to improve public services through the Citizen's Charter. The prominent responsibility given to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, with his known ability and human sympathy, is another source of great encouragement. I hope that my right honourable friend will be able to give as wide attention to the whole range of public anxieties as he will to the administration and development of the protective charters. While he, and no doubt all my right honourable friends, will agree that a government's prime duty is to lead, it is equally important in a democracy, well established as ours is and sustained by a responsible electorate, that the Government should listen as well as lead.

301
My main example, which is still thankfully within the ambit of today's discussion on home affairs, is the relationship between Scotland, Wales and England. The possibility of a divorce from England of either Scotland or Wales haunted me during the election campaign. I cast my mind back to the 1950s and 1960s when a range of duties took me often to both those countries and kindled an abiding love for the highlands and the valleys and a great affection for those who dwelt in them. In those days too I was convinced that successive Tory governments cared deeply and did much for the development of both Scotland and Wales. Later, although I know well that this concern did in fact continue, we have undoubtedly given the impression that somehow we were less ready to listen.
I believe that an urgent task for the Government today is to remove that false impression. That is not easy, as the Government must, in my view, continue to resist the subtraction of Scotland or Wales from the United Kingdom. To me such a subtraction would compare (though it would be far more painful) with the loss of a favourite tooth; and such an extraction as would horrify any reputable dentist—namely, the removal of a tooth in perfectly good health and good repair. But although I am convinced that the Government must preserve the unity of the United Kingdom, I beg that they will listen even more carefully to anxieties expressed beyond the borders of England and use all their powers to convince, as we have not recently convinced, that we really care.
This combination of leadership and listening is essential over the whole field of government and especially through those parts of our national life which we are discussing today. During my years in another place I was frequently worried in my constituency about the apparent powerlessness of parents, often unable effectively to discuss the problems of their children with those in charge of their education. The assistance of some, but not nearly enough, teachers of real sympathy and understanding was a massive reassurance to parents and also to myself.
Finally, as regards the National Health Service and in relation to the continuing help to men and women disabled by disease and injury, which is one of my present concerns, I have great faith in my right honourable friend and her colleagues in the Department of Health.
In a recent reply to the Royal College of Nursing my right honourable friend encouraged critics to criticise and emphasised her willingness to listen. I certainly hope—I feel confidence in doing so—that she will vigorously oppose the destruction of the National Health Service reforms which to my mind offer real hope for the future. But I am convinced that those very reforms, like many other government measures, have a far greater chance of willing acceptance if they can be freely criticised; if that criticism is listened to and sympathetically considered; and, in the light of that criticism, the objectives of the Government can be robustly presented.
302
I hope that the Government will also give attention to the very small things which are not apparently very important but which are of enormous significance to those who are anxious, ill, frightened or very lonely. Over the past years I have been lucky enough to see many examples in hospitals and elsewhere of what is neatly and sympathetically described as tender loving care, or TLC for short. But between bewildered patients and very busy doctors, nurses and others I suspect that there is always room for more.
Therefore I beg the Government, through both their departments and agencies, to consider no matter too small for that kind of attention and action. "Leadeners" is a word not yet in the Oxford Dictionary. I hope that one day it will get there because it is the best description I can think of for the leading and listening government that I would like to see.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is a real privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holderness. We are neighbours, as neighbourhoods go in Yorkshire, where the crow rarely seems to fly. We have been colleagues for many decades now in Parliament. I should also like to follow him in congratulations to the maiden speakers. I did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, was a Yorkshireman. It gives me particular pleasure to be associated in the congratulations to him, as I must be the last surviving member of the Percy Royal Commission on mental health and mental deficiency.
In the first debate on the Queen's Speech in a new Parliament, the Front Benches—especially the Front Benches on the secular side of the House—seemed to be skirmishing in disengagement from the party electoral fray, while those others of us, the parliamentary P131, went in to urge our particular interest in the appropriate debate.
I want to deal particularly today with the constitutional issues that were raised in the election and which I am sure are still of moment. The very nature of your Lordships' debate has some relevance to the constitutional issues because the rich and varied nature of the discussion that is woven in your Lordships' House is of importance when one considers the contribution that your Lordships' House has to make to the constitution.
I mentioned the issues that were raised in the election campaign. I am quite sure that the Government believe and hope that if they close their eyes fast enough all those issues will disappear. I am equally certain that they will not do so and that they will be of real moment during this Parliament. My plea is that as early as possible the whole lot of them should be referred to a Royal Commission on the constitution. I know that we had one a decade and a half ago. I say so to avoid the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, reminding me of that. However, it was of very limited cognisance and events have changed considerably since then. Such issues are by no means suitable for resolution in what used to be called "a smoke-filled

303
room" or by bargaining between the party leaders. On the contrary, they should be examined calmly, after evidence has been taken and with sober excogitation.
I know that this Government and their predecessors are not enamoured of Royal Commissions. They have been chary of appointing them and, when they did appoint the two Royal Commissions on legal services, not only did they promptly disregard the recommendations that the Royal Commissions had made after taking considerable evidence, but they brought in measures extruded from departmental entrails which were totally in conflict with what the Royal Commissions on both sides of the Border had recommended. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be the right course to take for the matters that I propose to discuss.
Before I come to the individual issues, I should like to refer to two preliminary matters which point in different directions but which have some bearing on the constitutional question. First, it seems to me that the electoral result reflects a very mature and sophisticated political judgment on the part of the electorate. I do not expect noble Lords on the lay side of the House to agree with that, but that is the position as it appears to me. It has happened before. In 1945, when Winston Churchill was incontrovertibly the most popular public man in the country, the electorate nevertheless rejected his party. That could only occur in a very mature democracy. So, too, this time. When one considers that an alternative Budget was offered that promised us—we were assured—that seven-eighths of the population would benefit from it; when one considers further that the election took place at the depth of a depression and before there were any clear signs of emergence; and when one considers what happened under similar circumstances in France, where there was a socialist government, and in Germany, where there was a right-centre government, one can only regard it as extraordinary that the Government here were returned—albeit with a reduced majority. One can add to that the dramatic fall in the popularity of President Bush from its height at the end of the Gulf war to the present when he is held responsible for the depression.
That is the first thing. It may suggest that all is well with our constitution and that the Government can safely close their eyes to problems so that we continue to muddle along with our present system. However, we have also had the warning about the dangers of an "elective dictatorship" that was given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. In our debate on the constitution shortly before the election, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, purported not to understand what was meant by that expression. I was surprised because he, like others among your Lordships, had lived through the enabling Act that was passed by the Reichstag—perhaps I may add, by a Reichstag elected by proportional representation—giving Hitler the power to legislate by decree.
Moreover, we have had recent examples of the erosion of legislative, democratic and parliamentary powers. I do not suppose for a moment that an elective
304
dictatorship in this country would come about as a result of anything like the Enabling Act, but there are more ways to kill a cat than by drowning it in a well.
Liberties can be eroded. One need only think about or read the so-called Child Support Act of the last Session. I venture to recommend that your Lordships re-read the speeches made on that measure by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It was little more than a skeleton Act. It gave over 100 regulation-making powers, of which only about 15 were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Powers were taken away from courts of law and vouchsafed to officials. Appeals from them no longer went to courts of law, but to administrative tribunals.
However, that was by no means the end. Ancient privacies were invaded. Officials were enabled to enter private places of employment and, under penalty, to interrogate fellow employees and employers. The age-long privilege of secrecy of the Inland Revenue was swept away in the interests of officials. What one saw there was an enormous bureaucratic aggrandisement. But that was not the only measure. Your Lordships have seen Henry VIII clauses, the downgrading of parliamentary control over delegated legislation, and the abrogation of your Lordships' procedures over the hybrid instrument in the interests of private interests and private rights. The noble Baroness will know what I am getting at because I am sorry to say that she was responsible for one of those measures.
The great problem countervailing everything that the election might have pointed to is that we have a creeping aggrandisement of bureaucracy. The question is: are we safe, then, to continue without a written constitution? My own view is that we are not so safe, but in any case that is essentially the kind of matter that a Royal Commission should investigate. Closely allied with that is the question of a written Bill of Rights, an issue on which four of my noble and learned friends differed in opinion. On the one side there were Lord Diplock and Lord Elwyn-Jones; on the other, my noble and learned friends Lord Hailsham and Lord Scarman. I had never any doubt that the latter two were right and that it makes sense only to repatriate at least the European Convention on Human Rights. If necessary it can be redrawn here.
Of all the particular issues I give only one example because it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Holderness. I refer to the question of devolution. If I may respectfully say so, I am sure he was right that the election resolved any question of the break-up of the Union. It showed that, even north of the Border, there is only very small minority support for independence. But there is, I think, a very substantial demand for a greater measure of control over their domestic affairs. That was the policy of the Labour Party; it was the second preference of the Scottish National Party, and it is supported by such influential Cross-Bench opinion as that of my noble friend Lord Perth. But, again, that demands further investigation, because there is the question of taxation. What rights are to be given by way of raising revenue? What effect will that have on England? Are English affairs not equally entitled to be considered by an English Parliament?

305
How is the United Kingdom Parliament to be constituted and what are to be its powers and its revenues? All these matters call for decision before one can even enter on the question of devolution; and so it is with all the other constitutional questions—proportional representation, referenda and so on.
I end as I began with a plea that the Government should seriously consider a Royal Commission on the constitution before we all get into a mess with bargaining between party leaders with a view to patching up a coalition.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am always an admirer of the way that he and other noble Lords can speak for up to 15 or 16 minutes without reference to a single note.
I should very much like to welcome the most gracious Speech and in particular the paragraph that reaffirmed the Government's intention to,
"continue to improve the quality of the National Health Service and community care and their responsiveness to patients' needs".
My noble friend Lord Holderness made a dental analogy and I should like to take up his theme. Patients' needs have been made quite clear in relation to dentistry and, while declaring an interest as a practising dental surgeon, I should like to say that, in view of the precarious state of dentistry today and the low morale of the profession, how disappointed I was not to see specific reference to dental treatment in either the Government's manifesto or in Her Majesty's gracious Speech.
The Health of the Nation proposed that,
"by 2003, 12 year-olds should have, on average, nationally no more than 1–5 decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth".
This objective has already been achieved in some regions. The next logical step should be to identify the additional oral health objectives, both in the short and long term, so that further strategies can be implemented.
The caries target for 12 year-olds by the year 2003 is commendable because it is recognised that, while the prevalence of caries has fallen dramatically in the past decade, in some parts of the country there remain areas where caries experience is unacceptably high, particularly in children and young adults. Without doubt, water fluoridation is the most effective method available at present for the prevention of dental caries, particularly with the great advantage of providing benefit to the lower socio-economic groups who demonstrate the highest prevalence of the disease and at the same time appear not to avail themselves of the many benefits of modern dental treatment. There is no doubt that the Government would be acting in their own and the public interest to ensure the continuing beneficial effects of fluoridation by considering the conversion of the enabling legislation which is in place to legislation making fluoridation compulsory.
The next months will be the most significant for the dental profession since 1948. It was reported that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister himself intervened to suspend the 13.8 per cent. fees cut for
306
NHS dentists which the Department of Health sought to impose unilaterally, ignoring the normal processes by which dental remuneration is decided. A statement from the Department of Health on 20th February announced that the cut, which had been put in place only 10 days earlier, would no longer be implemented on 1st April. It was announced that a joint inquiry by the department and the General Dental Services Committee would look into the reasons why dental payments in 1991–92 had exceeded by so much the level anticipated by the Dental Rates Study Group. Completion of this inquiry by May would enable the DRSG to take its findings into account in determining a new fee scale effective from 1st July this year. At the same time it was promised there would be a review of the entire dental remuneration mechanism to try to prevent a repetition of the current problem.
The earlier review body award of 8.5 per cent. which actually ended up as a proposed fee cut of 13.8 per cent. has left many dentists utterly despondent. The Government may have postponed the battle rather than face up to a mass withdrawal of dentists in the run-up to the election. But I have to say that it is widely believed that the cut will be reintroduced in the near future, with the resultant withdrawal from the National Health Service of many more dentists. On 25th March The Times reported that nationally one in four dentists is turning away NHS patients. There is conflicting evidence about that and I am aware that a survey conducted last September by FHSAs showed that nationally 76 per cent. of dentists are accepting all patients for NHS treatment and 85 per cent. are accepting children in all areas.
However, some dentists dislike having to provide National Health Service care. Although the process of seeking prior approval before undertaking more expensive treatments has been relaxed, the likelihood that NHS fees are threatened with reduction will make many practitioners think twice before registering patients and taking on the commitment of the 24-hour responsibility for them. Adult patients now pay 75 per cent. of the cost of their treatment, up to a maximum of £225—raising a total of £400 million towards the cost of the service—and it may seem easier for the dentist to persuade the patient to pay in full and steer clear of the complicated paperwork and commitments associated with the NHS.
The basic problem is that registration—and here I am in some difficulty with the exact figures as they seem to vary depending on the source that I use—has amounted to something between 27 million and 30 million people of all ages and is running at a higher rate than was predicted—between 20.3 million and 22.2 million adults against an estimate of 17.7 million and between 7.25 million and 6.6 million children against the forecast of 6.4 million. Those estimates were made on the basis of actual experience before the contract and the general idea that only about half of the dentate population regularly visited the dentist.
Among the 25 to 54 age group about 60 per cent. of the population are now registered and that figure is climbing at about half a million a month. Three-quarters of all children between the ages of 10 and 17 are registered. That is a fantastic success story.

307
It is achieving exactly the results that were hoped for with the new contract. Dentists are converting irregular attenders into regular ones. With the rise in adult registrations, new patients have come into practices and they have needed more work—probably because they were previously irregular attenders. As your Lordships can see, the contract has been a success for the patients, but under the present system the increase in treatment means that the funding available for dentistry within the NHS (which has a predetermined ceiling) has to be shared out among more treatments, thus cutting the fees.
Although a fundamental review is about to take place, it will be too late for this year. Dentists have done the work and achieved the policy objectives of the Government. They have not allowed waiting lists to accumulate in the general dental services. At the same time they see resources being put into other policy objectives such as the reduction in hospital waiting lists and they hear talk of "performance related pay". The dentists have performed and as a result they are likely to have their remuneration reduced.
The gracious Speech might have been an ideal opportunity to pledge continuing support for the dental services. I urge the Government to admit that the present system cannot continue and to take steps to implement the fundamental review that was promised in February. If the situation is to be remedied in 1993–94, the department must take up the matter as of great importance. The profession must know as soon as possible what constraints of either policy or funding are likely for the future. Members of the dental profession want the NHS dental service to work. They want to use NHS resources as effectively as possible and they want to provide the care that their patients need. I urge the Government to make a similar commitment to the profession and to the future of dentistry within the National Health Service.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I listened with special interest to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, because I am a member of an FHSA. I shall take a copy of his speech to my fellow members and encourage them to read it.
There are several aspects of Her Majesty's most gracious Speech with which I am involved. Therefore, I should like to bring a few points to the notice of your Lordships. Page 2 of the gracious Speech states:
"They will energetically pursue policies to combat the trafficking and misuse of drugs".
On page 3 it announces:
"Action will be taken to combat crime and promote law and order".
I welcome those two statements and I suggest that they should be closely linked. Drug arrests are increasing each year. Is not the increase in drug use a major factor in rising crime rates? There are increasing numbers of break-ins to houses and stealing to finance the drug habit. Recent research in West Yorkshire among children and young people shows worrying trends of experimentation with drugs. I refer to the
308
"Drug in Yorkshire Initiative". There have been two major seizures of cocaine in recent weeks, double what was seized in 1990.
On a recent visit to police cells in London where prisoners are held when they are locked out of prison, I learned that about half were involved in drug-related crime. Something ought to be done about some of the conditions that these prisoners are held in, whatever their crime. Most of those people are on remand. In a so-called civilised country like ours, is it right to confine people in a cell six feet by six feet meant for two with—it seems—not even enough room for a chamberpot? Some of the cells are below ground level with no fresh air or daylight. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, was one of the party who accompanied me on that visit. The prisoners we talked to said that they craved some fresh air after being held for three weeks in those cramped conditions. Is that not a serious health hazard?
The police we met that night were doing as good a job as possible, given the conditions. But there was concern that the sergeants and constables who looked after those prisoners were working overtime, which meant working long periods at a stretch. When they went on to the beat on their normal duty they were tired and the senior officers to whom we spoke were worried that they might not be as alert and responsive as they should be when carrying out their normal duties. The conditions that I have described were at Camberwell, but there are many prisoners across the country being held in such circumstances.
At the reception centre where the prisoners were brought in, we spoke to the doctor on duty who processed them. Most of the prisoners were on remand. One man who came out of the treatment room was obviously a serious alcoholic. I asked the doctor what would happen to him. He said, "If I could have one thing it would be a detox centre to send them to. These serious alcoholics are the most at-risk people in police cells". The very next week I noted that one of them had died. Would it not be much more humane and sensible to have secure detoxification centres where there might be some hope for such unfortunate individuals, who deteriorate even more in prison, which contains but does not treat?
While I am on the subject of prisons, I should like to add another concern as I am involved with young offenders and have been for many years. At a recent visit to Moorlands, a new young offenders prison near Doncaster, it was disturbing to see so many young people causing destruction to the furniture. Everything except the lavatory in some cases goes out of the window. For young people with energy, being shut up in cells for long hours must be soul destroying and promotes vandalism. Would it not be much better to make them do a productive day's work? But this would take more staff. I believe that they would be better people when they came out and there would not be so much depression, bitterness and destruction. What is most important is to reduce the escalating violence in society, to protect the public and to support the victims of crime.
At the young offenders institution where I am on the board of visitors we do not have so many

309
problems. But it is smaller and less institutional, even though it is a closed institution with a high fence. But there is still a worrying amount of bullying at times and many of us on the board of visitors are concerned that young people are locked into their rooms at 5 p.m. when they are receptions and many are first offenders. Some young immature people have great difficulty handling their own company. There are many aspects which need looking into. Suicide is now a common word.
Rehabilitation, counselling, group work and teaching useful occupations would be an investment for the future. But that would require more resources. Also I feel that more effort should be put into keeping first offenders separate from the experienced offenders who have been through the courts and the whole system many times.
The gracious Speech states:
"My Government will continue to improve the quality of the National Health Service and community care and their responsiveness to patients' needs".
I should like to pay tribute to the Westminster Hospital which has been the hospital closely linked with the Palace of Westminster. This hospital, with its good access for many who flock to the centre of London, will be shutting its doors next year. There seem to be more homeless people in the centre of Westminster than anywhere else in London. The homeless ill people need looking after. They develop serious illnesses, including tuberculosis. Now in America there is a rapid rise in the number of cases of drug-resistant strains of the TB bacterium. Our numbers seem to be increasing too. I ask the Minister whether the Government will keep a close eye on the health problems of the homeless in London and elsewhere.
With the closure of Westminster Hospital, the casualty consultant who has taken a special interest in the homeless ill in Westminster will be moving to the new hospital in the Fulham Road which will not be in such an accessible central point and will leave a vacuum here in the heart of London.
Care in the community will be difficult to accomplish unless there is good co-operation and harmony in work among health services, social services and the voluntary agencies. In some places statutory bodies still seem loath to use some of the excellent and user-friendly voluntary organisations.
I am a patron of the Crossroads care attendant scheme. This organisation has many schemes—about 200—in many parts of the country bringing help to severely ill and disabled people in their own homes to relieve the carers and to give them a short respite. The new patron of Crossroads is the Prime Minister's wife, Mrs. John Major. It is so good to have a person who has a genuine wish to help and care. I hope that with her delightful smile she will inspire many more people to give help when they have time to the many millions of severely disabled people who can remain in their own homes only if they have help when needed.
I should like to thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her help over several cases with which she helped me in the last Government. Access for disabled people is so vital. There are many
310
places which could be made more accessible with a lift. It is a pity that so much energy and effort have to go into getting easy access which helps so many. With an increasing elderly population this is more important than ever. It was disappointing that there was nothing mentioned in the gracious Speech to give hope of better access for disabled people.
At the entrance to your Lordships' House there has always been an accessible telephone. I have been a member of your Lordships' House since 1970. Last week I found two new telephones had been installed, both out of reach by anyone using a wheelchair. There are nine of your Lordships who use wheelchairs and numerous others who have to sit down when making a call. If Parliament does not remember these things, who will? Do we not need better legislation to remind the planners, developers and providers that there are millions of disabled people trying to live normal lives in the community at large?
8.36 p.m.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, although the gracious Speech did not specifically mention constitutional affairs in Scotland, we shall doubtless continue to hear a great deal about the subject during this Parliament. I hope therefore that it is appropriate to venture a few observations on it.
As a Scot who lives and works in Scotland what has greatly perturbed me in the past year has been the confused perception in many quarters in England of the realities of the political scene in the north. The first false impression down here is that there is some truly deep and powerful enthusiasm in Scotland for devolution as an overriding and popular cause. Your Lordships may therefore be surprised to know that in an opinion poll published on the eve of the election, among the Scots interviewed the Constitution ranked as only eighth out of nine issues in determining how they voted. That does not seem compatible with the assertion that 75 per cent. of Scots voted for constitutional change. However, if one had asked the media, the professional politicians or the political commentators what they thought the real election issues were in Scotland, there is not the slightest doubt that they would have answered that these were devolution or independence.
The issue of independence is one thing, and I shall return to it later. But what in any case does devolution mean? If ever a word was misused by lack of definition it seems to be "devolution" these days. At one extreme of the spectrum we most certainly have devolution already in Scotland through the very extensive powers devolved to the Secretary of State. At the other extreme is the definition of devolution which the so-called constitutional convention put forward and which two of the political parties offered to the Scottish electorate.
I am sorry that many noble Lords are probably unfamiliar with the policies which the convention proposed but I sympathise even more with those who have trudged through its offerings. A flavour of its conclusions may be gained for those happily unfamiliar with them by saying that, among other things. it advocated a draconian direction of industry,

311
including, for example, the right to tell the whisky industry how it should operate. At the same time, it proposed the most excellent and expensive working conditions for the members of the assembly, with research assistants, creches for assembly mothers—if that is the politically correct phrase—and all the rest. No wonder local Scottish politicians like it. It beats being a councillor in Kilmarnock any day.
What really is the impetus behind devolution? It is a combination of two things: first, enthusiasm for devolution has been largely media led. It is a good story and, in appearance, one that can be worked up into something much more exciting than the solid virtues of preserving the unity of the United Kingdom. The fact that the proposals for devolution presented to the Scottish electorate were flawed on any objective analysis of the economic, fiscal and political problems they threw up has become immaterial to most of the media. Awkward facts have been countered by an appeal to sentiment—thankfully still one of our best Scottish virtues—or, less admirably, by merely attacking any opponent on whatever spurious grounds were nearest at hand.
We have old-established, serious newspapers in Scotland. One or two of them, to their discredit, have started with the assumption that devolution is desperately wanted and beneficial, and then tried to back-fit arguments to their initial conclusion. They have used their own enthusiasm for the result they want as a substitute for reasoned or well-argued support for it. They have sorely abused their editorial freedom and their wider responsibilities to objectivity.
The second factor behind the impetus for devolution is one which might cause some distress on the other side of your Lordships' House when I spell it out. It is simply that the foremost issue for the Labour Party in Scotland is not the principle of devolution—at least in the sense of devolution as an arguable, political concept—but instead the more mundane and realistic desire for political power. It is a desire which is understandably and passionately inflamed, I imagine, if one has a majority of seats in Scotland but cannot get one's hand on the steering wheel and so cannot drive the vehicle of state north of Carlisle.
Whether the world would have heard so much about the injustice of all that if a Labour administration had happened to have had a numerical mandate to govern the whole of the United Kingdom, merely by virtue of having a majority of seats north of the Border, as was not so very far from being the case, is another matter. But being of a kind and generous disposition, I shall not press that point.
Nonetheless, I am of the firm belief that much of what has been heard in England has given a thoroughly false impression. There is not some fiery and impassioned Scots' desire for devolution. Much of the populous are bored by the word. But, sadly, the impression that people down here may have mistakenly formed derives mainly from the self-sustaining interaction of the media and the Scottish chattering classes, on the one hand, and, on the other, their adoption by much, but to their individual credit not all, of the Labour Party in Scotland of devolution
312
as a surrogate and a front for a frustrated wish to rule Scotland. That wish may be understandable in human terms, but it hardly stands comparison to the massive and enduring edifice of the Union.
Perhaps I may return, as I earlier threatened I would, to the alternative to devolution put forward to the electorate —that of independence. What the Scottish Nationalist leadership has done is past forgiving. It has deliberately confused the noble concept of patriotism with the corrosive, narrow and destructive tenets of nationalism. It tried to misdirect the national and justified pride in their country which Scots have, and in the achievements of Scots in every field at home and abroad and, above all, in their contribution to the United Kingdom, and to turn all that into anti-English sentiment. Worst of all, it dishonestly misleads and seduces good, decent, patriotic Scots into believing that it has every answer to economic, industrial and social difficulties when, in truth, the most superficial analysis shows that it has no solutions. Scots deserve better than that.
I hope that your Lordships will excuse me if what I have said may have seemed a little intemperate at times, but we Scots mind so very much about those issues, and it is sometimes a little difficult to explain to so many of you who are English, and do not have such a problem, that, although being a Scot is one of the great privileges of the world, the Union is the way through which, sometimes, we have best been able to repay that privilege.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we have been allocated four days to discuss the numerous and varied features of the gracious Speech: four days which are barely sufficient, judging by the large number of speakers today, including two brilliant maiden speakers, and the wide but by still no means comprehensive range of subjects covered.
It is worth asking ourselves what the position would be if M. Jacques Delors had his way—to be fair, not just M. Delors but others in positions of power and influence, although with a lower public profile, whose centralising ambitions are even greater than his and who pay lip service to the concept of subsidiarity but who, in practice, work unremittingly to extend the competence of the European Community's lawmaking institutions into every nook and cranny of our daily lives. We should need scarcely two days to cover the gracious Speech, so limited would be the power of individual action left to your Lordships' House or, more importantly, to the other place.
No longer would the British people be masters in their own house; no longer would they be masters of their fate. Happily that day has not yet come, but we must be eternally vigilant to ensure that it never does.
Perhaps I may turn now to more mundane matters: first, the Government's housing policy. I am aware that I am not alone in feeling somewhat uneasy at what appears to be a renewed drive to extend still further the proportion of owner occupiers among the population. It is noteworthy that many of the more prosperous countries in Europe, notably Switzerland and West Germany before unification, had a high

313
proportion of privately rented accommodation and a significantly lower proportion of owner-occupied houses, while, conversely, many of the poorer countries in Europe have a surprisingly high proportion of owner-occupied houses and flats. That, naturally, is not in itself an argument against owner-occupation; nevertheless, further to run down the private rented sector must make for undesirable inflexibility in the housing market.
It is surely a mistake to plan to abolish the Business Expansion Scheme which, whatever its other merits or demerits, has undoubtedly produced a worthwhile number of houses and flats to let at relatively moderate rents.
Again, the Government's plans effectively to end long leaseholds on flats must be a mixed blessing. Certainly, there have been grave abuses but most are associated with absentee landlords. Many of them come from overseas and operate through shady companies set up in Liechtenstein or some other offshore location. Such landlords disgracefully evade their repair obligations and in other respects make life difficult for the lessees. But surely such abuses could have been stamped out without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
As Lord Brooke of Cumnor, speaking from the Conservative Front Bench, said to your Lordships almost exactly 25 years ago, in return for the purchase of a slowly wasting asset for which an appropriately reduced capital sum was obviously paid, his family and tens of thousands of other families in this country were enabled to live in a much better house in a much better location than would have been the case had only freehold property been available for purchase.
The de facto abolition of leasehold, which is bound to follow from the Government's measures, will abolish that option, thereby reducing freedom of choice. Once again, it tends to build a degree, or more than a degree, of inflexibility into the system.
Proposals for further privatisation are to be welcomed, not for doctrinal reasons but for practical ones. Of course, there will be exceptions, but on balance the public are likely to get a better and cheaper service. The lateness of the hour inhibits me from enlarging on privatisation as I should like to have done, except to say this. Something must be done about the Post Office, or more specifically, postal deliveries. Paradoxically, long distance letters often arrive with reasonable punctuality; not so the short distance ones. Correctly typed, first class letters with correct postcodes often take two or even three days to travel from central London to destinations a mere 20 to 40 miles away. In 1992 that is not good enough. It will not do to say that in other countries—Italy, for example—the postal service is worse. Indeed it is, but that is no excuse. We normally pride ourselves on doing this kind of thing better.
Something must be done about cheque thefts. We are told now that it is too dangerous to pay our enormous tax bills by post. The Government are being rather coy about this. In the absence of a great train robbery—and so far as I recollect, there has not been one for over 30 years—it is obvious that the criminals
314
in question must either be Post Office employees or employees of the Inland Revenue. Have the Government any idea in which group the culprits are to be found? Can they say whether anyone has been charged with offences in respect of this serious crime?
That leads us to the various charters: the Patient's Charter, the Citizen's Charter and so on. Other commentators have pointed out that the concept of the citizen is unknown in English law and custom: I do not believe that it is excessively pedantic to repeat it again. Leaving that aside, of course it is right and proper that people should receive value for the taxes that they pay and should be treated with consideration. However, that cuts both ways. The citizen or subject—whichever one prefers —has duties as well as rights and must be vigorously reminded of that. Minimal waiting times in hospitals, doctors' surgeries and social security offices and so on, must be matched with punctuality on the part of the patient or applicant. Politeness must be responded to with equal politeness; and the public must do their bit. For example, they must cure themselves of the vice of litter dropping: when all is said and done, that is one of the easiest vices in the world of which to cure oneself. It requires practically no effort at all. I was delighted with the excellent maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, on that topic yesterday.
Of course, wider powers of arrest could be given and maximum fines increased, but prevention is better than punishment. The citizen or subject must be reminded that the Citizen's Charter is a two-way contract.
Finally, I turn with reluctance, I have to say, to a topic not in the gracious Speech but which will certainly come before this Parliament, probably sooner rather than later. I refer to hunting. I have never hunted foxes, nor do any of my family, so I have no personal axe to grind whatever on the matter. But I have to say to the Government that the Prime Minister's statement made before the election, to the effect that it was simply a matter for Members of Parliament to decide according to their own private inclinations, is not good enough. We are told that a large majority of the population find hunting distasteful. However, I remind your Lordships that less than 40 years ago an equally large, if not larger, majority found private male homosexual behaviour between consenting adults equally distasteful—the proportion in Scotland was about 89 per cent.—and that majority opposed any decriminalisation of the law. I hope that nowadays we have reached the point where we do not send people to prison merely for indulging in practices which large numbers of people may happen to find distasteful.
The Conservatives, as well as large numbers of people from other parties and from none, claim to uphold the rights of the individual to engage in any pursuit, be it a majority or minority pursuit, so long as it is not harmful to others or evil or wicked beyond any reasonable doubt. In addition, the Conservatives specifically purport to be the party of tradition, the party which stands for continuity and the maintenance of longstanding institutions, unless an

315
overwhelming and thoroughly researched case against a given institution can be made. It has not been so made in this case.
Hunting or the chase, if one prefers it, is one of man's inborn instincts, as well as being among the inborn instincts of large parts of the animal kingdom. In somewhat ritualised form, which combines necessity with pleasure, it forms part of the culture of every great civilisation in history—the ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, the Chinese, the Arabs and of course our own western civilisation. It has been the source of much great literature, art and poetry.
The idea that all this tradition—so important to country people in particular—could be swept aside overnight in response to the transient prejudices of Essex Man or Birmingham Woman, as expressed by their Members of Parliament, is frankly monstrous. It is especially so when those transient prejudices have been artificially stirred up by the expensively financed, hysterical and dishonest press advertising campaign which manages to convince gullible people—many of whom doubtless imagine that meat grows on trees—that in the absence of hunting all animals in this country would die peacefully tucked up in their beds.
The ultimate aim of these pressure groups is a ban on shooting, fishing and falconry as well since, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, with his enormous zoological expertise, would confirm, were he here tonight, the degree of suffering is virtually identical, whichever field sport one happens to choose.
The totalitarian Nazis abolished hunting—Hitler was a fanatical vegetarian—and significantly the National Front in this country also want abolition. Both drew, or draw, their support from the less educated sections of the urban community whose attitudes to rural matters are sentimental rather than knowledgeable.
When the North Vietnamese communists marched into Saigon, one of the first things they did was to make bridge a criminal offence, as they deemed it to be a reactionary, bourgeois capitalist game. Anyone caught playing bridge was sent to prison or to a so-called re-education camp for six months.
A democratic government should never even think of following the Nazis or communists down the road of criminalising traditional sports or hobbies dear to the hearts of so many people, even if the participants happen to be in a minority. I trust that this Government will firmly set their face against ever allowing that to happen.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, perhaps I may join those who have congratulated both today's maiden speakers. It is good to know that in my noble friend Lord Lucas we have a kindred spirit on health matters on these Benches. And there can be none who will not look forward to hearing again the noble Lord, Lord Rix. The only mistake that each made was to choose to make their maiden speech on a day when our deliberations were likely to last well into the evening. It was with some misgiving that I first saw that my own name was the last before the gap; hence my brevity.
316
In the past 13 years a number of notable milestones have been established in the National Health Service, not least the new GP contract, the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act, the Patient's Charter and the 1990 Health Act. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor today enunciated some of the advantages.
For me, one of the most important principles which runs through the whole gamut of measures introduced by the Government since 1979 is the devolution of power to those in the field. Now, hospital management and professionals, nurses, midwives and health visitors, general practitioners and many others can, in defined circumstances, make decisions and control their destinies uncluttered by many of the earlier constraints. I am very much in favour of that acknowledgement of the talent and ability to be found in the National Health Service. No nanny is required to ensure that the patient's interest is properly catered for by doctors, nurses and others. Their ability to deliver the service is well known, not only at home but internationally. My hope is that the extension of devolved powers to further hospitals and GP practices will be soundly based and that the beneficiary will continue to be him or her for whom the trend was first set in motion, the patient.
However, in all this the word "national" must not be removed from the description "National Health Service". Partly because of the way the National Health Service was funded in the past, the referral of patients outside their locality may not always have been as easy, in their best interests, as it might have been. The new health Act now provides a remedy. Money can follow the patient. That means that the National Health Service can now operate at maximum efficiency.
However, while wholly approving the principle of decentralising responsibility as much as is possible, there are some areas in which a top-down approach is well worth preserving. It is imperative that, in a move towards local autonomy, sight should not be lost of the value of handling certain activities centrally: on a supra-service basis. For instance, where equipment is unusually expensive, would it not be best to pool resources? Where skills are in short supply, would it not be best to send patients to specialist units for treatment? Where information technology is concerned, would it not be best to ensure uniformity as much as possible? Where management techniques are concerned, would not "action learning" be of common value'? In laboratory and other work, would not duplication of effort be avoided? In procurement, would not bulk purchases reap cost savings?
Over the next four or five years the health service will settle into its new, devolved and streamlined structure. My view is that the quality of service to the patient, and importantly at levels relating to administration, will improve noticeably. The wide-spread use and detailed power of new applications software, at GP level and upwards, should guarantee that.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to assure the House that the Government will hold on tenaciously to the advantages for the NHS of

317
top-down administration and liaison on a whole-service basis whenever there is a clear case for inter-regional co-operation. The trend towards devolved decision making is much to be welcomed. Let us not lose sight of the advantages of also being sensibly able to combine on a national basis, and in defined circumstances, to achieve certain ends through co-operation.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I apologise for rising, but my name, through inadvertence, was left off the list of speakers. I hasten to say that not for one moment do I believe that the Government Chief Whip wished to silence me!
I am by nature a reformer, and my more candid friends tell me that I am all too apt to welcome any reform, good or bad, simply because it is a reform. I certainly do not mind which party brings in reforms. Though in the last Parliament I had my differences with the Government on some details, I believe that the lines on which they are trying to reform education are not only right but necessary. I hope that their next reform will take in teacher training.
I go along with those who have spoken of the need for consolidation as regards schools. I am at one with the words which Sydney Smith addressed to the great grandfather of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he said:
"I like, my dear Lord, the road you are travelling, but I don't like the pace you are driving: too similar to that of the son of Nimshi. I always feel myself inclined to cry out, gently John, gently down hill. Put on the drag".
Could the schools be left to digest the reforms of the past five years and not have further, seemingly endless, changes added to their burden? The Government have ordered the new GCSE to be introduced this September, but how can it be when the schools have not yet received the syllabus or the text books? No sooner have tests been introduced than they are immediately altered, as is the national curriculum. Indeed, who is running the national curriculum? Is it the National Curriculum Council or the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council? The SEAC is very busy redesigning tests that are certain to change the national curriculum. Why not amalgamate those two bodies?
There is the vexed question of course work. Now that there are to be tests and regular inspections, need the Government be quite so ideologically opposed to course work? English and English literature are 100 per cent. course work in good schools. I realise that the Government may think that that is too much and fear that parents working late into the night will do the course work instead of the child. But children's progress is monitored by controlled tests organised by schools, and teachers dread going back to the days when examination technique instead of English was being taught. I am sure that the noble Baroness remembers her Dickens and Hard Times and what happened to poor Sissy Jupe when Mr. Gradgrind asked her to define a horse. I shall not quote the passage.
318
The teachers and LEAs may feel that the Government do not trust them, but that is nothing to the resentment felt by the universities. I do not think that they have felt so alienated since the Whigs, led by Lord John Russell, determined to reform Oxford and Cambridge. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, were he in his place in the Chamber tonight—I am sorry that he is not—would agree that those reforms which his great-grandfather instituted were necessary and wise. I hope that the noble Earl will see that the sum of the present Government's reforms are also necessary and wise.
Again, I readily admit that the alienation of the universities is in part the fault of the Government. The Government did not get across to the universities the reason why they were being squeezed and told to lower their unit costs. I do not share the contempt of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for Mr. Robert Jackson. I believe that Mr. Robert Jackson told the universities some home truths. But I am bound to say that when Mr. Jackson visited universities and made pronouncements, he reminded me of Rehoboam telling the children of Israel that if their father had chastised them with whips, he would chastise them with scorpions. The Government have still not put across to the universities the fact that, if we are to educate our workforce and middle management as well as our top managers, administrators and professional men, the costs of university education have to be cut.
However, if the Government have not been frank enough, many of those who work in universities have been singularly unimaginative. The vice-chancellors are not to blame. They have moved with the times. But their task is not made easier by some of their colleagues. I sometimes feel that institutions are too apt to think that any change is an outrage. I remember in 1967–18 months after I became a Member of your Lordships' House—Mr. Crosland, then Secretary of State, wanted to find some money to improve "sink" schools in the inner cities. His Treasury colleagues told him that he must find the money out of his own Vote. So he introduced a small differential between overseas students' fees and home students' fees. There was an uproar. In the debate in this Chamber Lord Robbins denounced the proposal as divisive of the student body. I believe that I was the only Member of the House to speak in defence of the Government on that occasion. I was certainly the only member of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors who did so and I was much criticised by my institution for so doing.
It is only 10 to 15 years ago since the great changes began to take place. In those days, any university which took more students than its student target would be rebuked by the UGC because to do so was, in the words of the UGC, to "lower the unit of resource". Clearly, if one could take more students than one was paid to do, one could do with less money. That was what the UGC said and it was very worried that universities would do that.
Among the vice-chancellors there were some blacklegs, such as the late Lord Bowden at UMIST, who used to say that the artificial restriction on numbers was madness, especially as so many places at UMIST and the polytechnics were being filled by

319
overseas students. The Robbins goal of expanding numbers in higher education had vanished from sight. What took precedence was the Robbins principle of persuading universities that the happy life that they had led in the 1950s would remain unchanged if student numbers increased.
That was only one way in which the Treasury used to control costs in higher education. The binary line was another way in which they controlled costs. Today, the Government's way is to divide higher education finance into finance for teaching and finance for research—or so I take it to be. I think that the Government are right. If we are to retain our eminence in scientific research, there is no other way than to create a research league among universities. To give all universities and all polytechnics undifferentiated funding spells disaster for academic excellence and for good teaching.
The universities complain that they are being asked to take more students and are not being given more staff to teach them. The more one expands higher education, the more one drains good teachers away from the schools. Why should a graduate in maths and science teach in a school when he can get a better paid job in a college or a poly, let alone in industry? At any given time there is a limited number of young people who have a real vocation to teach. If one keeps creating more teaching posts in higher education, one will find that one has none of high calibre in the schools. When the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and Mr. Nigel Forman visit universities and are attacked for making universities teach more students with the same number of academic staff, could they remind the dons that that is one reason why the Government take that line?
Of course the noble Baroness knows that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the dons repeatedly tell us that the success of British universities is due to the favourable staff-student ratio and tutorial and small group teaching. That is true. It is also true that we produce more graduates than other European countries because the drop-out rate in this country is so low.
Perhaps I may again quote the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He often tells us in this House that there are signs that standards are declining and the Government must not dismiss such warnings as yet another academic moan. He may be right. But I wish that he and the vice-chancellors would tell the Government what new methods they have devised for teaching larger numbers while yet preserving small group classes. Why not ask all arts lecturers in the summer to put their lectures on video-tape so that they do not have to spend those hours giving formal lectures? Lecturers who saw themselves giving a lecture might give better ones in the future; and let no one believe the criticism that the video-tapes would have to be wiped every year because the lecture would be out of date, as I was once told by an indignant professor. Every book in a university library, apart from the books bought in the past 10 years, is out of date. Part of tutorials should of course be devoted to questioning received wisdom, whether on video-tapes or in books.
320
However, by far the most important point that I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will make when she visits universities is this. The most important sector in higher education is not the universities, nor even the polytechnics; it is the colleges of further education and the various industrial training schemes for post-16 year-olds. The Opposition have been right to condemn those courses as having too little money put into them, with government expecting industry to do the job. Whatever additional resources can be made available should go to them. That is why the universities should not hope in this decade for much improvement. Will the noble Baroness assure us that such courses are the Government's top priority?
Will the noble Baroness also assure us that the Government will invent financial inducements for any institution in higher education, and any sixth form, that introduces B-Tech courses? Will she go further and provide inducements or moral suasion to persuade universities to introduce such courses?
I suppose that that last request resembles a pipe dream. However, Exeter and Ulster Universities have introduced B-Tech courses into their curriculum. At Durham the emphasis on continuing education has had, so I understand, exactly the same result. But when shall we see proud Oxbridge introduce a vocational module into their first degree courses? Of course there is the so-called enriched engineering course at Cambridge. It takes five years. Every engineering first degree course ought to have at least one module in it on how to cost a product.
If we are to do more than to pay lip service to continuing education and to improving education, what will our top and middle management be in the future? The first degrees in polytechnics and universities will have to change. We shall have to follow the United States in making our first degree course a series of modules. Instead of saying that no one can get a degree in history unless he knows all about the 14th century, we shall have to ask: has he taken a module in accountancy, or the use of English, to obtain that degree? Every student should take at least one module which is directed to vocational or practical knowledge. I hope that that will be the pattern of higher education in the next century.
I have observed that politicians in power have to spend much of their time and energy in telling their supporters that, in power though they may be, they cannot do what their supporters want—usually because the money is not there. However, Ministers have another role. It is to tell those whose affairs are in their hands why their unpopular decisions must be made. I hope that the Secretary of State, the noble Baroness and the junior Ministers will tell those in schools and universities that at present our top priority is to train the workforce and middle management and that is why there will be less than any of us likes for those at the top in higher education.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I rise as the first speaker below the line signalling the fact that we are approaching the end of our debate. I am sure that noble Lords will be truly grateful. The debate has been

321
not only interesting but fascinating. Perhaps it has been more interesting than the gracious Speech to which it has been addressed. About five hours ago the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that he had not found the gracious Speech exciting, and I agree with him. I should be a little more enthusiastic about the presentation of a humble Address to Her Majesty had it related to the speech which she addressed to the European Parliament this morning rather than that which she addressed to the two Houses of Parliament last week.
The debate has been wide-ranging and was opened with a wide-ranging speech from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The noble and learned Lord had to cover so much ground that he could not give us any detail. However, he paused to give us information about the timing of possible steps to deal with the serious and worrying issue of wrongful convictions. While he was clearly worried about wrongful convictions he was accepting the fact that it may be two to three years before he can take any steps. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, commented that surely something can be done. Something can be done and will be done by juries. During the coming weeks we shall find that juries will be increasingly reluctant to accept the evidence given by policemen. That is not necessarily wholly to our advantage but it is one of the possible consequences of the delay in dealing with the pressing issue of wrongful convictions.
Your Lordships heard two truly excellent maiden speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, knows perfectly well that this House has a fine record in defending the rights of the mentally handicapped and in acting on their behalf. He also knows that he will be warmly welcomed by those noble Lords who work indefatigably on behalf of the mentally handicapped. They will be grateful to have such an able hand to join them. I enjoyed his speech immensely, although it was not quite as funny as a previous speech I heard him make at the Whitehall Theatre!
Your Lordships also heard a splendid and interesting maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. His speech was so well-informed that when I later saw him outside the Chamber I accused him of being a doctor. He made a splendid short speech about the National Health Service. How right he was to underline the need for us to face the question of choices as regard the allocation of resources in the National Health Service. We must tackle that matter head on before long if the NHS is to be steered through the stormy weather which lies ahead. Choices will have to be made and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, some of them will not be easy.
I was also impressed by the speech made by my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. He congratulated the Government on enabling us to receive the Woolf Report. However, he regretted the fact that it was necessary to have a disaster in a prison before commissioning the report. After discussions that I had last week with a senior prison officer at Strangeways Prison it seems not unlikely that there will be another disaster there before long. In that case
322
we might need to have a second Woolf Report before we have acted on the recommendations of the first. I enjoyed my noble friend's speech which was most important.
Some four hours ago my noble friend Lord Beaumont told your Lordships that I would talk about housing. I must make his words come true. Although I had intended to talk mainly about the National Health Service perhaps I may say a few words about housing. In this country we are facing a housing crisis brought about by the present Government's obsession with owner-occupancy rather than anything else. All their policies have been directed at increasing the percentage of owner-occupiers and they have been very successful. Over 60 per cent. of the British people are owner-occupiers. That sounds fine but it is not fine for those who are later evicted because they have fallen short in their mortgages, having been persuaded to take on burdens which they cannot fulfil.
Homelessness has been referred to in this debate by several noble Lords and it is referred to in the gracious Speech. Another document which has been referred to is the Patient's Charter. That states:
"Every citizen has the following established National Health Service rights … to be registered with a GP".
Tell that to the homeless and the people living in bed and breakfast accommodation. We have a very serious situation in which those people—and many of them are children—find it impossible to get on the list of a general practitioner. As a result, many of those children have not had the immunisation courses which they should have had. They have not been immunised against polio or diphtheria, and in certain areas there is a danger of an epidemic.
Certain general practitioners have gone out of their way to make special arrangements for the homeless and for those living in bed and breakfast accommodation. However, the family health service authorities will have to take special steps if homeless people—and it is a scandal that there are so many of them—are to get on a list of a general practitioner.
It is appalling that there should be homeless people sleeping rough in the way they are now. In this debate there has been reference to community care. That is an extremely good concept, I believe, but it is not yet a reality. For many people discharged from institutions, some of them mentally ill, community care means a Salvation Army hostel, a prison or occasionally a cardboard box in a doorway. Much must be done if we are to have community care in reality, and the gracious Speech makes reference to it. The noble Baroness knows that many steps must be taken if it is to work. For many patients it is a better option, but it is not a cheap option and the money will have to be found.
At this point I must say that it was something of an embarrassment to me to find that I agreed very much with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I do not always agree with him but the arguments about the National Health Service during the general election campaign were extremely damaging to the service. They have done much to undermine and damage morale among National Health Service

323
workers, doctors, nurses, and so on. I believe also that some of those arguments did much to undermine public confidence in the service; quite wrongly, for it is a splendid service.
Certain parts of the argument, in particular relating to one party political broadcast, suggested that people may be wise to seek treatment privately rather than through the National Health Service. My advice is the reverse. I do not wish to criticise those who provide private treatment but look what has happened to them. When bodies like BUPA first came into existence they only looked after a handful of rich and healthy people. That was money for old rope because they did not have to do anything. However, once they took on all the employees of a certain firm or all the members of a certain trade union, BUPA and the rest of them were in exactly the same position as the National Health Service; that is, they had an unlimited liability to provide everything necessary for everybody, but they cannot do that. That is why, if you subscribe to one of those insurance schemes, you will find that the brochures are full of small print telling you what treatments are, or are not, provided. I am certain that I am covered for a hysterectomy or a radical mastectomy, but there will be many other complaints for which I shall not be covered. To give people the impression that private medicine really is a rival to the National Health Service is an absurdity.
The election is over. The Conservative Party has won the election and we know from the gracious Speech that the National Health Service reforms are to continue. We must accept that. If we wish the National Health Service to work, we must make it work. All those who believe in the National Health Service and believe in its continuation on the basis on which it was originally established—that is, free for all at the time of need—must work together to protect it and accept some of the changes.
I know that there has been much anxiety about independent trust status. I am bound to say that I favour any steps that devolve management of an organisation much lower down the organisation and bring it closer to those who actually do the work. Therefore, perhaps in opposition to some of my colleagues, I am inclined to favour the idea of independent trusts.
We must remember that there are certain advantages to independent trust status. A necessity of having a system of contracts between hospitals and health authorities is that we need to know the cost. The National Health Service has never been properly funded. I have worked for the health service ever since it started and there has never been a time when the opposition party of the day, be it Labour or Conservative, could not, with perfect justification, accuse the government of the day of destroying the National Health Service. They have all been destroying it all the time because it has never been adequately funded. Why? Because nobody knew how much it cost. With the new arrangements and the trusts, for the first time steps have had to be taken to realistically cost routine procedures in the health service. That was not done before. It should have been
324
done 40 years ago. At long last it is being done and is one of the benefits which will flow from the system of trusts. I hope that that will be accepted.
In his maiden speech one noble Lord referred to choices. As I said, the health service has never been adequately funded and never will receive all the funds it can spend. Sooner or later decisions must be taken about the best way in which to use the resources of the health service. We can only do that if we know the cost of everything, and that is not easy.
Many years ago a close friend of mine, Sir John Charnley, began inserting hip joints in Wrightington Hospital, in the North. I asked what on earth he was up to. He had waiting lists as long as one's arm for people with bad backs and sore feet and yet he was messing around with hips. I wondered how much it would cost. Initially it probably cost a great deal. The important point is that as time has passed the operation has become routine and is now relatively cheap. Therefore, if one initially costs procedures one should continue to do so. Many things which originally we may have said we could not afford to do, we now can afford. But we cannot make the kinds of choice referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, unless we know the costs of procedures in the National Health Service. That is why I believe great benefits may flow from what has recently taken place. I hope that the work will continue and be brought to a successful conclusion.
I am bound to say to the noble Baroness that the trusts have not had a fair start. The goalposts were constantly shifted after they were established. For example, once the trusts were established they were suddenly told that they must pay VAT on their energy supplies. That may be a relatively small item in some cases but for Manchester United's hospitals—a lovely name though not as nice as Old Trafford—it amounts to £500,000 a year which they were not expecting to have to pay. The goalposts were changed.
In addition, there was a clear indication that the money would follow the patient. The money did not follow the patient. In the first year the money remained with the health authorities and was never paid out. That is why trust after trust was in desperate difficulties. They were owed massive amounts of money for services that they had provided under contract for health authorities. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to say that now the trusts are in their second year those bodies will pay up at the proper time. I know that the Government have taken steps in industry to try to avoid the delay in settling accounts, particularly in the interests of small businesses, but perhaps the noble Baroness can say that in the second year the trusts will be paid and the money will genuinely follow the patient rather than remaining where it was—in the pockets of the health authorities. Perhaps the noble Baroness will also say something about why the Government suddenly found it necessary to place the additional impediment of VAT on energy supplies, which was not in the original arrangement.
9.35 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I particularly welcome the excellent speeches of the two maiden speakers, the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Lucas. We look forward to hearing them again on frequent occasions in your Lordships' House.
As my noble friend Lord Mishcon said earlier, I shall focus rather more on education than on other matters. Regrettably I shall not have time to cover higher education so I shall be unable to take up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, a number of which I disagree with rather profoundly. I disagree particularly with his suggestion that the pool of people who go into university teaching is the same as the pool of people who go into teaching in primary and secondary schools. There is absolutely no evidence of that; it is simply not true.
I wish to comment on two or three other aspects of today's debate as well as education. Perhaps I may take up again the Government's very vague commitment to take action to combat crime. I have no idea what is intended. As my noble friend Lord Mishcon said, there was little in the opening speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to indicate what the Government's intentions are. Again, as my noble friends have said—and I make no apology for repeating it—we face a worrying increase in crime. Most crime, as your Lordships know, is committed by youths and young men between the ages of 16 and 25 years. High levels of unemployment in that age group clearly reinforce the trend of worsening crime statistics. Yet, as the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Kinnock, rightly pointed out in another place and as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, mentioned today, it is an extraordinary omission that there is no mention anywhere in the gracious Speech of unemployment or of any steps that the Government may be taking to reduce it or at least mitigate its effects. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment. She will surely agree that high levels of unemployment are likely to lead to higher levels of crime however unacceptable as a response to joblessness breaking the law may be.
According to reports in the press—I do not know whether they are true and perhaps the Minister will tell us—the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is telling the Home Secretary that he will not get any more resources to deal with the problems of law and order. While of course we are all in favour of value for money and efficiency in the police and while many of us want to see more cost effective penal policies, the Chief Secretary's remarks will send shudders down the spines of those who are the victims of crime especially in our inner cities where much of it takes place.
Have the Government run out of ideas on crime prevention? Are more elderly people going to be frightened of going out after dark? Are more women going to feel unable to go home by themselves late at night? Are more people in vulnerable areas who have been repeatedly burgled going to find that they cannot get insurance cover? The Chief Secretary to the
326
Treasury should consider such concerns more sympathetically before he slams the door on any increased spending in that area.
One approach which he might find attractive and which would certainly have the support of these Benches would be to secure savings by reducing the number of custodial sentences for property offences. There are still far too many young men going to prison for offences which do not justify a prison sentence. I strongly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said about overcrowding. The Government recognise that the costs of imprisonment are astronomical and far higher than the various forms of non-custodial sentence. They are also well aware of the unsuitability of prison for many young property offenders who, in regimes which provide little educational training, which enforce idleness and which thus provide more opportunities, learn how to survive via more serious crime rather than learn about how to survive via a steady job.
A not unrelated question concerns the social security provisions for 16 and 17 year-olds. On these Benches we share the growing concern in the country about the scandalous underprovision of social security benefits for certain 16 and 17 year-olds. The Social Security Act 1988, which removed income support entitlement for most 16 and 17 year-olds, needs amending if the Government are serious about emphasising those groups with greatest needs.
In the words of the Government's own advisers, the Social Security Advisory Committee:
"The youth training guarantee is not being delivered in full, and without such a guarantee, the absence of a right to continuing entitlement to income support can leave very vulnerable youngsters with no visible legal means of support. We see no sign that the situation is improving—indeed there seems in some areas to be a sharp decline in the availability of places".
That is the third report in which the advisory committee has indicated that it does not believe that the system is working properly as a result of the 1988 changes. As the advisory committee says, there are young people who cannot live at home and who now run the risk of destitution. They include those who have left home because they have been physically or sexually abused; those with parents who cannot support them because of chronic illness or because they may be in prison; orphans; and those who have recently left local authority care. Such young people have in most cases already suffered a great deal. Must they go on suffering to the extent that they are destitute and living on our streets? The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has already asked for an answer from the Minister and I should like to repeat his request. If nothing is done, more young people could be driven into crime as a direct result of the Government's own policies.
I hope that the Minister will not tell us that special hardship payments are the solution: they are not. The system for obtaining them is impossibly complex, especially for such a vulnerable group, as the Government's own advisers have said on more than one occasion. There is a simple remedy: remove the exclusion of 16 and 17 year-olds from income support and use the actively-seeking-work rules to exclude

327
from benefits those who just do not want to work. At the same time as making that change, the Government might reconsider their harsh attitude towards the level of benefits for young people up to the age of 25 which are lower than for adults. Again, the advisory committee has advocated a change in three successive reports, stating:
"continuing a situation in which young people do not have sufficient even for bare subsistence may lead vulnerable youngsters into crime or prostitution. We strongly urge that, at least for those living away from home, the full rate is restored".
Why will the Government not listen to their own advisers?
There is also a glaring omission in the gracious Speech in relation to pensions. The Government were utterly negligent for nearly two years after the Social Security Act 1990 was passed in bringing forward regulations that would have prevented the Maxwell robbery occurring. All that was needed was, first, a 5 per cent. ceiling on self-investment and, secondly, in the event of a winding up, making the pension fund a debt to the employer. In the light of that negligence, will the Government compensate those pensioners who have lost out as a result of the Maxwell scandal? Will they reform trustee law regarding pension funds so that such a scandal cannot happen again?
I do not wish to go into detail about the Government's proposal in the Queen's Speech to introduce further bribes to encourage people to take out personal pensions. Some £6 billion has already been spent on this and another £ 1 billion will have to be spent on the latest proposal. However, I should like to ask why the private sector apparently needs another subsidy to stop people opting back into the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme. That suggests either that private pensions are just not competitive enough or that there is not adequate consumer protection and guaranteed standards to make them attractive.
Much more worrying is the Government's vague commitment to target spending on those with greatest need. It is, of course, important to help the very poor, but there are many people who are not well off who need support at vulnerable periods in their lives—for example, when they lose their jobs, when they are old or when they are bringing up children. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury referred to the importance of social measures to provide that kind of support.
I assume that the Government intend to reintroduce means tests for certain benefits. However, before they rush down this road, I hope that they will take into account the fact that child benefit, which is universal, has a take-up of almost 100 per cent. and that family credit, which is means tested, still reaches only 50 per cent. of those eligible. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, targeting in terms of the Tory tax and benefit changes since 1979 has given an average of £87 extra a week to the richest 10 per cent. while the poorest 10 per cent. have lost on average £1 a week. What a rotten record.
I welcome the proposal to improve community care, but there must be adequate funding. If there is not, this will affect yet more very vulnerable groups, as
328
the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has just said. Demography is not on the Government's side. Nor can they relax about the likely cost of community care. It is not a cheap option. There is now less than a year before implementation of the new plans. I wonder whether the Minister can say whether the Government have any system for monitoring how these plans are progressing. Can she say what machinery the Government will be using for monitoring the quality of community care once the new plans are implemented after April of next year? Can she also say how the divided responsibilities at central government level will be resolved? Three departments are involved. Which Secretary of State, if any, will have responsibility for co-ordinating this work?
On the more general question of the operation of the NHS, many people are worried that the Government's reforms will not maintain the principle of free access according to need. The Government have not made explicit how they intend to improve the quality of the NHS. There are inconsistencies in insisting on the split between purchaser and provider at the same time as defending GP fund-holding because in effect the fund-holder is both. I must make clear to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that on these Benches we shall be watching carefully how these reforms develop. We cannot simply accept them without doing so. We are particularly concerned that a two-tier health service could develop so that those who can afford to pay get higher priority and better treatment.
The Government say that they will continue to raise standards at all levels of education. The use of the word "continue" is a little cheeky. Many parents will certainly question that claim. They believe that standards have been falling. As consumers of what is on offer, they are in a pretty good position to judge it, though of course their judgments will sometimes be subjective. But there is plenty of more objective evidence to back them up. I am sure the Minister is aware of an NFER report on reading standards. The report showed a decline in reading standards of three to five months in the reading age of seven and eight year-olds between 1987 and 1991. She must also have seen the report on primary education by Professor Alexander. This inquiry found some evidence of downward trends in important aspects of literacy and numeracy. Independent findings such as these can hardly be a basis for claiming that the Government's work in raising standards has been successful.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford rightly said how important it is that teachers should believe in the system in which they are employed. Teachers working in inner-city schools with many pupils from families struggling with poverty will be demoralised by the Government's proposals for league tables. If this is all the Citizen's Charter will deliver on education, it does not add up to a row of beans. We argued at length in this House during debates on the Bill that tables showing the value a school adds to pupil performance should be published as well as those based on raw data. At the time the Government rejected these arguments. I still hope that they will think again. It would be quite easy to

329
undertake some pilot studies and I urge the Government to do that. Identifying those schools as successful which are favoured by their intakes is no substitute for working to improve the standards of all schools so that pupils as a whole can benefit.
The extension of choice and diversity in education may appear to be perfectly legitimate goals. However, when people see the Bill that we are promised, which is to bring that about, I fear that they may not look quite such attractive objectives. What has this so-called extension of choice and diversity meant so far? It has meant the invention of CTCs and of grant-maintained schools. Neither invention has been a roaring success, as industry will not cough up money for the former and parents and governors have, for the most part, refrained from grabbing the carrots dangled in front of them on the latter. So in most areas—and I am sure that the Minister will accept this—parents have continued to choose between local authority or voluntary-aided comprehensive schools. In noting that, we should remember that comprehensive schools are not all carbon copies of each other; indeed, there are differences of style and emphasis between them.
Where grant-maintained schools have been established, the main difference between them and the LEA schools is in their funding. Grant-maintained schools, and for that matter CTCs, have been much more generously treated with respect to capital allocations. Does the Minister think that that is fair to the many thousands of pupils in LEA schools? Perhaps she can tell us. I should also like to know whether those bribes are likely to continue when the number of such schools greatly increases. If that continues, it will not be surprising if parents tried to get their children into them in preference to other schools. Those schools will then be over-subscribed and parents will be turned down. They will be told that they will have more choice, only to find that they have less choice. The schools will start choosing the parents rather than the parents the schools.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that we are to have a White Paper prior to legislation. No doubt the Minister will say in reply that we will have to wait for that before she can answer questions on what greater diversity and choice means. I see that the noble Baroness is nodding her head in agreement. I assume that the Department of Education has realised that the nightmare scenario of having to run thousands of schools is something that it wants to take urgent steps to avoid.
Your Lordships may not be aware of the fact that there are already over 50 civil servants in the grant-maintained schools unit, costing the country nearly £750,000 just to deal with 200 schools. Moreover, Ministers are finding themselves drawn into unseemly disputes between heads and governors which would be resolved by LEAs in county schools. Perhaps the Minister can say something about the Department of Education's thinking so far. Are we to have funding councils for secondary schools? If so, how will they be accountable? Alternatively, are we to have local school boards? Further, what will all this
330
bureaucracy mean for LEAs? Frankly, the whole thing seems to me a sad diversion from the real issue; namely, raising the quality of education in all our schools. That is what parents really want and what the nation needs.
Finally, perhaps I may ask the Minister a straight question which my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris has already put. Do the Government intend to reintroduce selection at 11 or not? That is an issue of principle. We do not have to wait for a White Paper for the answer. Will the Government follow the example of one of their favourite authorities—namely, Wandsworth—and start dividing children into sheep and goats at the early age of 11? Are we going to designate children as failures before even giving them the chance of starting secondary school on an even playing field? As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, reminded the House, the 11-plus examination was a deeply unpopular device. The Government may try to disguise the reintroduction of selection by various means. But if bringing back selection is what they intend, I am sure that parents will soon be aware that they are facing the 11-plus in another guise. Teachers and parents will be demoralised by what they will rightly see as turning back the clock to a discredited system. That will not raise standards for the great majority of pupils, and it is incompatible with parental choice.
I cannot disguise my disappointment that we are faced with yet another Conservative programme. I am also disappointed that so little that is new and exciting was introduced in those sections of the gracious Speech concerned with home and social affairs and education. But what I fear most of all is that the inequalities that have grown over the past 13 years will go on growing, and that the Prime Minister's so-called "classless society" will be even further from attainment than it is at present.
9.54 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it is an honour and a privilege for me to participate in a response to the gracious Speech and indeed to follow my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Let me say at the outset that, while it has been an honour and a privilege, I also find it a frustration because so many subjects have been touched upon and each one could certainly justify a debate in itself. There is no way in the time available to me that I can do justice to the debate. Therefore if I miss out points that have been raised during the course of the debate I shall either pass them to the relevant colleagues on the Front Bench or I shall write to noble Lords.
There have been two splendid, interesting and mightily confident speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Lucas. My noble friend put an interesting slant on the health reforms. He talked about the importance of a dialogue between the health service and local people in determining some difficult decisions that are left very often to the health service itself. I welcome the promotion of that work. One could couple what he said with what my noble friend Lord Harmsworth said when he was

331
talking about the need for top-down strategic oversight, especially in the purchasing of equipment when there are savings to hospitals, but also the importance of bottom-up day-to-day management and operational autonomy. They complemented each other, and I again congratulate my noble friend on his speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is of course relentless. His work is unstinting. He will bring that wonderful established sense of humour and great competence to the work of this House. We look forward to hearing very much more from him as we sit through the hours in this great place.
This has been a wide-ranging debate, as I said, with so many outstanding contributions from all sides of the House. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, the programme which this Government will bring forward this Session and in the next five years of this Parliament is a reforming one.
The programme in the Queen's Speech seeks to strengthen opportunity and choice and to continue the crusade against unnecessary regulation and restrictions on individual freedoms. To those ends we shall continue the task of giving back to people greater control over how they live their lives, creating greater choice, giving people more opportunity, cutting back the power of government, central or local, over people's lives.
We shall encourage and build up the private sector. We want to stimulate enterprise and encourage people to stretch out and challenge themselves to rise as far and as fast as they possibly can. At the same time, and on the basis of a strong and enterprise-based economy, we shall work for a society which cares for the disadvantaged but through means which enhance rather than undermine those citizens' capacity for independence.
We shall strive to improve the quality, the efficiency and the value for money of public services nationally and at local level. We want to empower people. We shall do that by making all public services much more responsive to their customers. We shall endeavour to strengthen the underpinnings of a civilised, law-abiding society and continue to take action against crime, particularly among young people. We shall open up better opportunities for our children by raising education standards from nursery classes right through to universities.
I turn now to the detail of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made an excellent speech and touched upon so many points. I shall try to deal with one or two of them. First, I think he suggested that transferring the lead responsibility to the security services was akin to giving the IRA political status. That was also mentioned by other noble Lords. That is not true. Terrorism is a crime and terrorists are criminals. The prevention of terrorism is primarily a police responsibility, but intelligence work is only one small part of the overall counter-terrorist effort.
With regard to finger-printing, there has been unquestionable abuse, with individuals lodging up to 50 or more asylum applications in false identities as a basis for benefit fraud. Comprehensive finger-printing
332
is the only sure way to stamp this out, given that so many asylum-seekers present themselves with no identity documents.
We would all say "Amen" to the point the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised about speeding up consideration of possible miscarriages of justice. Nevertheless, we need to allow the Royal Commission time to report. We shall consider what steps to take in the light of what it says. However, we should be wary of quick-fix solutions. It would not necessarily be in the interests of justice.
Crime prevention was another point raised. The Government are committed to a programme of crime prevention in which government, local authorities, the police and the public have a role to play. Neighbourhood Watch is a good example. Over 100,000 schemes in England and Wales, covering 1 million households, are already working effectively in the field of crime prevention.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether there would be enough police. In addition to the increases in police manpower that have already taken place, we have a manifesto commitment to supply 1,000 additional officers, and they will he produced. Ethnic minorities and the NACRO report are something that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Home Office will be considering.
The noble Lords, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and Lord Mishcon, referred to the Woolf Report. Progress has been made in a White Paper on each of the main elements which provide a response to the Woolf Report. Much has already been done. Proposals relating to the appointment of an independent complaints adjudicator are under consideration. Radical changes in adjudication arrangements were introduced, on schedule, on 1st April 1992.
On custody and control, a new prison mutiny offence and increased penalties for assisting escape came into force this month. Other positive programmes include an increase in prisoners' average earnings from 6th April 1992: new pay rates to give greater incentives to work are to come into effect in December, extensions of sentence planning are under way, and wider supervision after release, introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, is to be implemented in October. They go with better educational opportunities and the many other programmes that are in train.
The White Paper offers an exceptionally ambitious, complex and challenging programme. No government have committed themselves to a systematic and long-term programme of reform on such a scale. There can be no doubt that change is needed. Prisoners must be held securely. They must be prevented from flouting the law through riot and disturbance, and they must be required to make purposeful use of their time in prison. The proposals in the White Paper will meet those needs.
Measures have already been taken to improve security and control of prisoners, to develop purposeful programmes which will prepare them more effectively for release, and to achieve better relations

333
between staff and prisoners so that trouble can be averted and a more constructive atmosphere in prisons created. That will provide the best basis for enabling prisoners to face up to their responsibilities in custody and after release.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made many references to poverty. There is a fundamental philosophical difference between those of us on these Benches and noble Lords on the Benches opposite. We believe that it takes a prosperous, wealthy society to provide for the needy in the community. It is only by those means—all the Government are doing is to see that the country is prosperous—that the Government can do many of the things which were on the list of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. He was joined by many other noble Lords in referring to the plight of 16 and 17 year-olds. All 16 and 17 year-olds are covered by the Government guarantee of an offer of a place in youth training.
Careers officers refer young people having difficulty in obtaining a youth training place to guarantee liaison officers, who help them to find one. Certain groups of vulnerable young people are, nonetheless, automatically eligible for income support—for example, lone parents and some young people with disabilities. Young persons seeking a YT place may be eligible for income support if they would otherwise suffer severe hardship. No young person need be without financial support.
Community care issues were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. The Government's commitment to community care is evident from their record. Local authority personal social services expenditure is up by 59 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Guidance is being produced to help authorities implement community care. Practice material has been produced for, among other things, assessment and care management procedures. I know that those points also interest my noble friend Lady Faithfull. We intend to promote the development of domiciliary day and respite services to enable people to live in their own homes, wherever that is feasible and sensible. We also intend to ensure that service providers make practical support for carers a high priority and to make proper assessment of need and good care management the cornerstone of high quality care.
Changing topic to that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? Can she answer my question about how the Government intend to monitor these new schemes? I entirely accept that they are desirable, but will they happen? Will the resources be there and will the schemes be introduced throughout the country? It would be helpful to know what machinery the Government have in mind for evaluating the implementation of the schemes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness the assurance that they will be monitored, but I have to say that 35 people spoke in the debate
334
and the noble Baroness will have to be patient and wait for me to come to the points which she raised in her speech during the debate.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who raised the issue of Scotland as well as constitutional points. Perhaps I may say at the outset that I believe that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was courageous in stating unequivocally our support for the Union against what was perceived in the middle of the campaign to be a positive clamour of popular support for devolution. The Union has coped with organic changes since 1707. Scotland already benefits from a number of special arrangements at Westminster and I recognise that the Union has evolved over time and will continue to do so. The House must recognise that the Government have not seen any recent fundamental proposals for change which would be an improvement on the status quo.
The Government are always receptive to well founded proposals for change and are willing to consider and discuss ways of making government more responsive to the needs of Scotland, provided that they do not damage the union or the interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK. We are prepared to consider ways of improving the mechanisms of government for Scotland's benefit. These points were also raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Weir.
The noble Lords, Lord Windlesham, and Lord Holme, are not in their places so I shall communicate with them after the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips is also not here but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for referring to her in her absence. She is, I was about to say, the master but it should be the mistress of plain English in this House and she touched a chord with many of us on these Benches. We take issue strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—and I link this with the point I made about the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. We do not make excuses for committing crimes. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was absolutely right that there have been times in the history of this country when people were poor but that was no excuse for committing crime.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry, I was in no way excusing—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, is not in his seat. He made so many points in a particularly moving speech that I should like to communicate with him on all of them. However, time again constrains me and prevents me addressing people who are not present.
My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon made a number of points, particularly about insider dealing and money laundering, and I cannot address them all. However, I can say to him that we plan to bring forward a Bill to strengthen our powers to deal with financial crime.
The fraud provisions in part derive from a 1989 Law Commission report and are directed at giving our courts jurisdiction to try cases of fraud and similar

335
offences where much of the criminal activity—for example, a deception—may have taken place in this country, but the final act—normally the obtaining of the proceeds—occurred overseas. Many of the points that my noble friend made will be passed on to my relevant colleagues.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull made many points in a touching speech. The Education Act 1981 has brought many benefits to children who have special educational needs. Nevertheless, she knows that I am aware of some of the shortcomings in the implementation of the procedures both within local authorities and in appeals to the Secretary of State. I share some of the concerns expressed by my noble friends. I wish to see improvements in those areas. The Government are prepared to consider whether legislation would be helpful. To that end I am already having discussions, not only within the department but with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who I am sure will speak on behalf of many noble Lords in this House. Again, I shall have to correspond with my noble friend Lord Renton outside the debate.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of selection. The Government do not intend to impose a selective pattern of schools across the country. That is not the case. We have consistently made it clear that we do not intend to lay down any particular organisational pattern for schools. We are committed to a diversity of schools and to maximising parental choice. The law places the initiative first with the local education authorities and governors of voluntary or grant-maintained schools to establish the most appropriate pattern for schools in their areas. Clearly, they should do so in the light of local needs and the wishes of the community.
Where proposals to introduce selection in the admission arrangements of a school are before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for decision he will take into account very carefully the views of all those who have expressed an opinion on those proposals. He will also consider the educational merits of the proposals, the existing pattern of schools in the surrounding area and the ability of the school to respond to the challenges of its proposed new status. Equally, he will look very carefully at any proposals to close existing grammar schools and in particular at proposals which would end selection entirely in an area, taking account of the views of the local community in each case.
Our overriding concern is to raise standards across the board, in particular through the national curriculum, by maximum delegation of responsibility to individual schools through local management of schools and, increasingly, by the acquisition of grant-maintained status.
Much has been said on the Benches opposite against choice and diversity. The other option is stultifying uniformity. We positively disagree with that. I am interested in what Mr. Tim Brighouse had to say as a guru of the Labour Party. I would not pose the question to myself but put it back to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I should be interested in his response to Mr. Brighouse's comments this week.
336
The right reverend Prelate is not in his seat so I shall move on to the remarks of my noble friend Lord McColl. As always, my noble friend Lord McColl brings to this House great experience and first-hand knowledge of the National Health Service. He confirmed what we on this side of the House know, namely that this Government are committed to a high quality National Health Service which is free at the point of delivery to patients.
I can tell my noble friend that over one third of National Health Service hospital and community health service capacity will now be managed by National Health Service trusts. The third wave expressions of interest represent nearly 20 per cent. of National Health Service expenditure. The trusts will be better able to respond to patients' needs through greater freedom and flexibility and greater local involvement. Quality and improved benefits to patients are high on the agenda of all trusts, and district health authorities will designate essential local services which must be maintained in NHS trusts.
I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said in welcoming some of the reforms. I also note his concerns, which will be shared by everybody; namely, to ensure that the reforms work. If our energies are directed to that end that will be a good thing.
In relation to 16 and 17 year-olds, we must encourage young people to make the most of their opportunities. Moving straight from school to dependency on benefits should not be an option. The majority of 16 and 17 year-olds are at school or at work. For most of the rest income support has been replaced by the Government's guarantee of the offer of a suitable place on youth training. As I said, income support is still available for the most vulnerable groups.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull raised a number of questions, but in particular she mentioned parity of esteem for academic and vocational qualifications. How much I agree with that. It is important to ensure equal esteem for academic and vocational qualifications - a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Annan.
Good vocational qualifications provide a good general education, preparing people for jobs. They should have good currency with employers and should be an alternative ladder to higher education. It is the level of the qualification that matters, not whether it is academic or vocational. More young people should study for vocational qualifications. It is that flexibility that we have built into the system post-14.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is not in his place, so I pass on. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that he unnerves me somewhat. He always pre-empts precisely what the Government's response to his points will be. He will not be surprised to hear me mention the previous Royal Commission on the Constitution of 1969 to 1973 under the chairmanship of Lord Crowther and later Lord Kilbrandon. The report of that Royal Commission remains a useful source of background information on the historical perspective of our constitutional arrangements. Those who have followed the debate on constitutional issues from that

337
period to the present day will appreciate that the report did not provide a comprehensive blueprint for constitutional restructuring. Many of the main issues discussed in it were prominent in the other place prior to the election.
The Government are taking stock of the constitutional position in Scotland. I touched on that issue in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe.
The matter of nursery education was raised. If one takes into account nursery schools, nursery classes, young children who are accepted into school at the age of four plus, pre-school playgroups, toddler groups (in which I was involved for many years) and parents who prefer their children to be at home, a very large proportion of young children under five are in some form of educational provision.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale mentioned the need for constitutional reform and a written constitution. No country can claim to have in place a set of faultless constitutional arrangements. But what is missing from much of the current discussion is the recognition of the very considerable strength of our own system and institutions. We see no merit in substituting a written constitution or a Bill of Rights for the present delicate system of checks and balances which has been developed over centuries and which provides the safeguard of our democratic system. Such constitutional arrangements cannot easily be emended. People may find themselves bound by an earlier view of rights and freedoms which restricts rather than enhances their liberties. The Royal Commission was discussed in the useful, wide-ranging debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in the last Parliament. A number of interesting points have been made, all of which will be noted by my colleagues in the relevant departments.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn, who is in his place, brought up the issue of dentists. His speech was extremely interesting and I shall pass on his words verbatim to my honourable friend in another place, Dr. Brian Mawhinney. There is a review taking place at this moment. Indeed, my honourable friend in another place today put out a press release and I shall make sure that my noble friend receives a copy.
My noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton was concerned about remand prisoners. About a quarter of those in prison are remand prisoners. They are held either in local prisons, which are mostly overcrowded, as she said, or, if they cannot be held in prison, they are detained in police cells. The Government do not consider that holding such people in police cells is appropriate either for the prisoners or the police. We take the point that she made, but much is being done. We have the most robust prison programme that has ever been undertaken by any government and we shall continue to make changes.
I can reassure my noble friend on the issue of Westminster Hospital that the high quality care, including paediatrics and accident and emergency services, currently provided by Westminster Hospital
338
and Westminster Children's Hospital will be continued and improved on by the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital.
There are still so many points to answer that I find it difficult to do other than promise that I shall write to my noble friends.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Baroness kindly notice that not only am I standing in my place now but I have been in my place for the best part of eight hours? I asked two or three questions about which I know she shares my concern. Why does she not refer to me? I feel upset.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I promise to deal with his points specifically by letter. There are other people in the Chamber to whom I have not referred; there are others who are not present. I am already over-running my time.
I have described government policies across a wide range of our national life. They will all contribute to a Britain of opportunity and choice, a Britain of enterprise and self-respect, a Britain where the state enables and facilitates but does not seek to dominate the life of its citizens.
Our policies for education are absolutely fundamental to the whole design. There is general agreement on the need to raise standards for all our children at all levels of ability. Through the Education Reform Act we have put in place the national curriculum under which all our children will study core and other foundation subjects from the age of five years through to 16. Regular assessment and testing will provide the information for teachers and parents to build on strengths and address weaknesses in a child's learning. The ever greater devolution of responsibility to schools is also helping to improve standards. Our White Paper later this year will set the path towards more and more of our schools choosing the advantages of autonomy and self-government. To that greater responsibility for schools we have now attached greater accountability through our Parent's Charter legislation.
Systematic and regular inspection at each school, together with the requirement to publish examination results, truancy rates and other key data will be a spur to high standards. For good schools inspection will confirm and underpin their work; for less good schools the inspection will provide the diagnostic evidence to form a programme of action for improvement. Nor should we overlook the moral and spiritual dimension of education—a point emphasised by a number of noble Lords.
The House agreed to an amendment to the Education (Schools) Act as it went through: the requirement that registered inspectors should include in their reports a commentary on the spiritual, moral, cultural and social aspects of life in a school which adds up to a school's ethos. Educational standards are not merely important for their own sake. They are important for the sake of the individual pupil. They are important because they bear on the whole life of our nation.

339
Our future as an enterprise-based economy, and as an orderly and civilised society, depends upon educated, well motivated and well behaved young people. A school with good standards and a robust community spirit can make the critical difference to many of our young people. As an inner cities Minister, I have seen some schools doing splendid work in the most unpromising circumstances. Our educational reforms provide the framework for improvement across the whole schools system. We look to the education system to deliver high standards of teaching and learning and to instil values of good citizenship. Our reforms are geared to those ends.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has a personal commitment, and has pledged his Government, to the creation of a strong economy, a prosperous and strongly defended Britain, coupled
340
with a commitment to address the needs of people with disabilities and others who are disadvantaged. Those are not incompatible objectives because it is only a prosperous country that can provide for good, public services. That lies at the very heart of our programme. I commend those objectives to your Lordships today.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Viscount St. Davids.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty four minutes past ten o'clock.