Sitting of 22 June 1994

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

  LONDON DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Car Industry
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the prospects for the British car industry.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that the President of the Board of Trade is in the land of the midnight sun, and the Minister for Industry is attending the Industry Council in Luxembourg. I am sure that they would like me to pass on their apologies for not being here.
    Prospects for the British car industry have never been better. The industry is in the healthiest state that it has been for a long time; new car sales and new car production figures have both shown increases during the last year at a time when other markets, particularly in Europe, have been depressed.
    Mr. Atkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and congratulate him on his appointment.
    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been a revolution in the fortunes of the British car industry in the past 15 years? That is well exemplified by the experience of Nissan UK in the north-east of England: last year, it exported more British-built cars than any other car manufacturer in the country. I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that that is a tribute to the company, the commitment of its workers and, in particular, the flexible industrial and labour-relations policies introduced by the present Government.
    Mr. Needham: In 1979, the United Kingdom's car industry was on the way out; now, it is on the way up. In 1979, when the Labour party was last in office, just over 1 million cars were produced; now, production is up by some 30 per cent. Employment is now at 132,000, as against 290,000, so productivity has doubled. Investment in the car industry is now three times as great as it was in 1979. Furthermore, by the end of the decade, the British car industry will be back in surplus on the balance of trade.
    218
    Other parts of British industry can learn a wonderful lesson from that; another lesson to be learnt is what a Labour Government will do to people, and what a Conservative Government actually achieve.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: As well as congratulating the British car industry as a whole on the success enjoyed by Nissan, will the Minister recognise the efforts made by Jaguar of late, and the fact that it is now re-employing staff whom it had laid off during the past few years? Will he recognise that the biggest problem faced by such firms as Jaguar over the years has been the lack of a decent supply base in this country—along with gross fluctuations in the currency, largely as a result of the economic policies pursued by his Government? When will he take measures to enhance the industrial base and to supply a stable economic policy leading to the long-term benefit of the car industry?
    Mr. Needham: The biggest barriers to the success of the British car industry over the years—until this Government came to power and changed the laws on industrial relations—were the antics of the trade union movement. I am delighted to say that the trade union movement has now accepted the need for the unions themselves to be able to show that they are responsible and respectable partners with industry. That is one thing that the Government have achieved. I commend "The Dawn of a New Era", introduced by the president of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. That fundamental change would never have taken place without the legislation passed by the Government.
    I do not believe for a moment that the position of Jaguar has anything to do with the factors mentioned by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). Furthermore, our automated components suppliers are now some of the most efficient in Europe. They are starting to export all over Europe and the rest of the world, and they will play a vital part in increasing our manufacturing and engineering exports in the next few years.

    Industrial Prospects
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next proposes to meet representatives from the Confederation of British Industry to discuss industrial prospects.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): My right hon. Friend maintains close contact with the CBI on a wide range of issues, including the prospects of UK industry.
    Mr. Arnold: Bearing in mind recent reports that British industry's confidence is now at a five-year high and that the British economy is growing faster than any other in the European Community, is not it tragic that, at this moment, our lines of distribution and supply should be disrupted by the selfish behaviour of the rail union?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend. The rail strike is bad for business, bad for employees, a number of whom are losing wages because they cannot get to work, and bad for Britain's image overseas. What contributes to all that is the obfuscation of the Opposition, who are not prepared to condemn irresponsible action by trade unions.
    Mr. Hardy: In the discussions, did the Minister deal with the problem of industries, such as the engineering and

    219
    steel industry, which face grossly unfair competition from our European partners? If so, will he tell the House what he told them? What urgent action is being taken to remedy that unsatisfactory position?
    Mr. Eggar: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has discussed that issue with leaders of industry and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is now discussing it in the European Union.
    Mr. Sykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that British prospects are immeasurably enhanced by the competitiveness of British industry today? Will he remark on the prospects for competitiveness in the rail industry as a result of today's strike? While he is about it, will he try to find out what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) thinks about today's rail strike?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is a belated moderniser within the Labour party. He seems to mix up obfuscation with modernisation.
    Mr. Cousins: Let me take that question off on a different track. Now that the aims of clause 4 have been achieved and every British company has majority shareholdings which are common owners, does the Minister agree with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the relationship between those common owners and the people responsible for running industry is not the right one on which to secure a long-term basis for investment and finance?
    Mr. Eggar: That question may make sense within the arcane intricacies of the Labour party's leadership contest and the various complications with regard to whether the modernising arm or acting leader of the Labour party wishes to do away with clause 4, but it makes no sense to the rest of the House or to the country.
    Mr. Butcher: I welcome Britain's almost unique position in Europe and its industrial prospects. Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why world stock markets have been falling is the growing realisation that there is a worldwide shortage of capital because Governments are syphoning off too much money to fund their deficits? Given the excellent work that his Department has done on competitiveness, would we not have a conspicuous competitive edge if we were to provide the most attractive taxation regime for capital taxation in the western hemisphere? Will he champion that cause?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree that Government deficits are bound to influence worldwide interest rates. I have taken careful note of my hon. Friend's preference on capital taxation and shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is aware of what he said.

    Nuclear Review
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he can now give about the timetable for the nuclear review.
    Mr. Eggar: The industry's commercial case for new stations has now been published. The Government have invited submissions from all interested parties, including comments on that case, by 30 September. We will consider carefully all representations received.
    Mr. Hughes: Is not the Government's timetable the latest in the rather inglorious series of privatisations of energy industries? First we have indecision, then we have delay and then we have botch up. Will the Minister come clean on the following questions? Why is the Green Paper being written by the nuclear industry, not the Government? Why are the Government being inconsistent by not saying that they will make anyone who buys the nuclear industry take responsibility for all the liabilities—past, present and to come?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman should do two things. First, he should do the House the courtesy of studying exactly what the Government have said. There is no question of the Government publishing a Green Paper in the first place and there is no question whatsoever of the nuclear industry writing that Green Paper. Secondly, I suggest that he sticks to windmills.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate Nuclear Electric plc on the remarkable turnaround which that company has achieved, which has put it on course to achieve an operating profit by next year, before the nuclear levy? Will he seriously consider the submissions to the nuclear review from Nuclear Electric, which make it clear that the best thing that could happen to that company is for it to be freed from state ownership and allowed to compete freely in the private sector?
    Mr. Eggar: We shall obviously want to consider carefully the representations that have been made, at some considerable length, by Nuclear Electric and the other elements in the nuclear industry. The banter that issues from the Opposition whenever reference is made to improvements in the record of the nuclear industry is not only a disgrace but unfair to the many thousands of people who work in that industry, a number of whom belong to trade unions that support the Labour party.
    Mr. O'Neill: Whose review—that of the Department of Trade and Industry, that of the Department of the Environment or that of the Scottish Office—will be responsible for consideration of on-site dry storage? It seems that that aspect of nuclear waste management is being lost. There have been lengthy public inquiries into it, and there have been reports, but it has not been included in the current review. Therefore, it should be dealt with separately since it has gone through the judicial process. Should not there be a clear line on that, and does not it have to be resolved quickly, because it enters into all the commercial judgments that will have to be made?
    Mr. Eggar: That relates to a decision that has to be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. My understanding is that he has decided to await the radioactive waste management study that is being carried out by the Department of the Environment, but obviously waste management and storage must be considered carefully in the context of the nuclear review.

    Food Producers
    Mr. Tyler: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to reduce the competitive disadvantages facing United Kingdom food producers within the EU single market.
    Mr. Needham: British food producers are competitive. They are winning business in the single market. The UK's exports of foodstuffs to the European Union increased from more than £2.7 billion in 1990 to £3.8 billion in 1993. That is an increase of 40 per cent. The Government are backing that excellent performance with support for marketing and exports.
    Mr. Tyler: Is the Minister satisfied that the GATT regime and the EU single market mechanisms are sufficient to deal with the problem of subsidised dumping of agricultural and horticultural produce, and especially the salad produce that is coming to this country at prices below production cost? Has he seen the evidence about that issue that the National Farmers Union has put before hon. Members?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman is the Liberal Democrat spokesman on agriculture. I cannot understand why he is asking me what is obviously an agricultural question. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has considered the question that he has posed and has not found any evidence to the effect that he has suggested. If the hon. Gentleman has that evidence, I suggest that he does two things—first, write to the Minister direct and, secondly, ask the Minister about it on Thursday.
    Mr. Nicholls: Is not the biggest disadvantage to food producers in the EC the possibility of over-regulation by Brussels? Is not it a profound piece of cheek for a representative of the Liberal Democrat party to come along to the House, representing a party which would give away our veto in Europe and lie down to anything that is imposed on it by Brussels, and then shed crocodile tears all over the green leather about regulation from Europe?
    Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend, representing as he does a seat in the west country, knows as well as I do that what the Liberal party says in the constituencies, in the House of Commons and in Brussels is mutually contradictory. We should not be surprised about that; we should just make sure that our constituents know it.

    Advanced Technology Programmes
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effects of the cuts in the advanced technology programmes.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stale for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The advanced technology programmes had been running for six years. We will be spending the money that was previously devoted to them on new activities. These were set out in the competitiveness White Paper and will help the majority of firms to get better access to, and advice on, technology.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is not the Minister aware that cutting the advanced technology programmes has led to 25 scientists and engineers being made redundant at the Welding institute in Abington, near Cambridge? Does not he realise that bewildered industrialists cannot understand why the Government are inflicting such home-grown damage on a firm that is the major promoter of technology transfer in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As I said, the programmes had been running for six years. We have to examine the best way of
    222
    using the resources that we have at the Department of Trade and Industry. Is the hon. Lady calling for more spending, for higher taxes or for cutting borrowing?
    Mrs. Gillan: The advanced technology programmes have been a success. Has my hon. Friend had a chance to look at AEA Technology, which has performed impressive diversification into neural networks and environmental science? Is he aware that the firm is operating under some uncertainty, waiting for a statement about its privatisation? Is he in a position to tell me when such a statement will be forthcoming?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend's point is well taken. We are considering the matter, and we hope to be able to make an announcement of the sort that she requires shortly. That is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, who has taken note of what she says.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister confirm that the Government have cut tens of millions of pounds from industrial collaborative research funding for textiles, printing, paper and other manufactured products? Why are they the only Government in Europe cutting funding for collaborative research in those industries?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As I have said, we always have to look at the best way of using our resources. We are helping a number of companies by means of the Business Links offices that we are setting up throughout the country. The EC research and development budget will grow by 5 per cent. per annum until 1999, and the Government contribute to that budget. The recently published R and D scoreboard shows a welcome 9 per cent. increase in R and D investment in United Kingdom companies.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend note that the competitiveness White Paper enhances the work done in the science White Paper? The Government really are trying to achieve better collaboration between industry and the academic community in their various programmes. I welcome the advances being made in the technology foresight programme, for instance.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning a number of areas of collaboration, and the money that we are spending through the links programme, the small firms merit award for research and technology programme and various other programmes by which we are helping industry. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the foresight programme, which is an important one.

    Post Office
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the future of the Post Office since 19 May.
    Mr. McLoughlin: My Department has received approximately 830 representations since 19 May expressing a range of views on the future of the Post Office. These matters will be addressed in the Green Paper, which will be published shortly.
    Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister give me a categorical assurance that there will be no VAT on parcels, no further closures of rural post offices and no worsening of this great public service? Why does not he follow the views of the

    223
    Union of Communication Workers, which seeks commercial freedom for the Post Office, not its destruction by elements of privatisation?
    Mr. McLoughlin: If the Union of Communication Workers adopts the same stance as that taken by the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, it is most unlikely that I will agree with anything that it says.
    We have looked hard at the issue of VAT on stamps; we have consulted the European Commission; we are satisfied that privatisation will not mean the imposition of VAT. As for rural post offices, the hon. Gentleman should be thinking about how to give them more work so as to ensure that people want to take them on. Of the 20,000 post offices, 19,000 are in the private sector. I want them to succeed and to get the increased business that they require so as to ensure that people want to take them on as viable businesses.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Post Office is one of the world's finest distribution companies but that if it is to prosper it must be allowed greater access to capital markets for investment and expansion? Does not he think that the best way to ensure the future of rural post offices is to unshackle the Post Office from state ownership?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As I have said, we shall shortly publish a Green Paper outlining a number of options for consideration. We shall say in that Green Paper which is our favoured option. If rural post offices are to survive, we need to find a way to ensure that people are prepared to take them on as businesses. Some 19,000 post offices are in the private sector. Usually, rural post offices close because nobody wishes to take on those ventures.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister recognise that the President of the Board of Trade has stirred up a hornets' nest on this issue and that people are genuinely angered? Why do not the Government concentrate on building a successful public enterprise with the requisite commercial freedom?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The only people stirring up a hornets' nest on this are those in the Labour party who consistently say that somehow rural post offices are under threat. They speak as if the status quo is an option and say that the universal service and the universal tariff are under threat. There is no threat to either.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fears expressed about the Post Office are precisely the same as those that were expressed by the same people when British Telecom was privatised? Does he also agree that wherever privatisation has taken place there has been increased investment, improved productivity and a much better service for the customer?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend rightly points to what has happened with British Telecom. My hon. Friends will remember that when we were privatising British Telecom we were consistently told by the Opposition that it would mean an end of all rural phone boxes because they would not be maintained. There are now more rural phone boxes and, even more remarkable, they actually work.
    Mr. Robin Cook: If consultation on the forthcoming Green Paper confirms that the great majority of the Post Office's customers do not want it to be privatised, will the Government accept their verdict? Is the answer yes or no?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman wants a yes or no answer. When does he intend to give us a yes or no as to whether he supports the rail strike? Indeed, when will any member of the shadow Cabinet give us a yes or no answer—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been asked a question. He is a member of the Executive and he has a duty to answer it.
    Mr. McLoughlin: We shall, of course, take note of what is said in the light of the publication of the Green Paper, but we will also want to make sure that our proposals will ensure a good future for the Post Office. There are some serious questions to be asked about that. Even the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, an all-party committee, said that the status quo was not an option.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Has my hon. Friend seen the comment by the chairman of the Post Office that the only way to a really secure future for the Post Office is for it to offer a wider range of services? Is not the campaign by the Labour party to scaremonger people into believing that rural post offices will be closed absolutely disgraceful?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I have gone a long way to try to assure my hon. Friends and the House about my commitment and that of the Government on the question of a nationwide network of post offices. Unlike both the Opposition parties, ours was the only party to spell out in our manifesto the importance that we attach to a nationwide network of post offices. This week, the chairman of the Post Office rightly told us about some of the problems faced by the Post Office because of current restraints.

    Lloyd's
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when next he proposes to visit Lloyd's to discuss future Government policy in relation to the insurance industry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I maintain regular contact with Lloyd's to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern.
    Mr. O'Brien: In the light of the enormous losses sustained by names at Lloyd's and the importance of the insurance underwriting business in Britain, is it not about time that the Government undertook an urgent review of the works of the Lloyd's Act 1982 and the Financial Services Act 1986 with a view to moving away from self-regulation, which has patently failed, and towards a system of proper effective statutory regulation?
    Mr. Hamilton: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt and ascribe his supplementary question to ignorance rather than malice. I hope that he is not wholly unaware of all the changes that have taken place in the governance of Lloyd's in recent years, and the substantial progress which has been made in returning the insurance

    225
    business generally to profitability. I wish that Opposition Members would concentrate more on supporting British industry rather than knocking it and running it down.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom's insurance industry is one of the jewels in the crown of UK plc, and that it is vital for the Government to continue to support the United Kingdom insurance industry and ensure that Lloyd's returns to success and profitability? Is it not indicative of the attitude of the Opposition that they are entirely motivated by ignorance and prejudice and a desire to run Britain down?
    Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall shortly be taking a delegation from the British insurance industry to Japan to try to break into the Japanese market, which in the past has been highly protected and controlled, because our industry is among the best and most innovative in the world and there are many opportunities for us to develop the insurance business and improve our overseas earnings.
    Mr. Bell: Ignorance or malice is hardly a proper response from a Minister of the Crown who is normally courteous. If he would be kind enough to look again at the Lloyd's Act 1982, he will see that it provided for a financial institution to be above the law. That is why there has been exploitation. Are not those sufficient grounds for the Lloyd's Act 1982 and the Financial Services Act 1986 to be reviewed so that we can have full statutory regulation of Lloyd's that is both transparent and accountable to the House?
    Mr. Hamilton: I certainly would not accuse the hon. Gentleman of being ignorant in this respect as he was a member of Lloyd's, but got out at the right time. However, he is misleading himself if he thinks that a system of statutory regulation might have provided a different result from that which was a consequence of the Lloyd's Act 1982. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee that considered the Lloyd's Act 1982 included two Opposition Members, including the current Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). It was therefore a decision of the entire House to put in place the regulatory system contained in the Lloyd's Act 1982. I believe that the changes that have been made within the framework of the Lloyd's Act 1982 will protect Lloyd's in future from many of the mistakes that occurred in the past and we look forward to the future with confidence.

    Competitiveness
    Mr. Richards: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next proposes to meet representatives from the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the White Paper on competitiveness.
    Mr. McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and other DTI Ministers maintain close contact with the CBI on a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Richards: Will my hon. Friend confirm that improving the competitiveness of the Post Office is a major objective of Government policy? Was he aware that last Monday I opened a new post office at Colwyn Heights in my constituency? Does not this enterprise by my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, signify a new future for the Post Office?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I wish Mr. and Mrs. Jones well in their venture of opening a post office. I hope to be able to provide them with new services which will produce more profitability for their business venture.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Why do the Government not adopt a strategy for British manufacturing? Is not the reason for the total lack of convincing measures in the recent White Paper the fact that the Prime Minister will not let the President of the Board of Trade have a strategy for British manufacturing industry?
    Mr. McLoughlin: That is rather at odds with the usual approach of the party that normally sings the TUC's song. So far, John Monks of the TUC has said:
    "This White Paper is a welcome shift in the Government's approach to competitiveness".
    The latest training and enterprise councils newsletter also stated:
    "The Government's White Paper on Competitiveness has received a broad welcome by the TEC leaders".
    I therefore reject what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Ward: Will my hon. Friend join me in approving the emphasis on small firms in the White Paper? Will he listen to their concern about the difficulty in collecting debts from some of their bigger brethren?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said on that point which, as he knows, was dealt with in the White Paper. We intend to introduce several measures to tackle late payment of debt. There have already been some welcome improvements in this country compared with other countries, but we will deal with the issue again if sufficient progress is not made.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is it not a simple fact that the glossy, expensive, £600 per page White Paper contains no new ideas on investment, research and development on training, and no strategy to restore the strength of Britain's manufacturing industry? Does the Minister agree that the sheer bankruptcy of ideas in the White Paper is the reason why so many people feel that the President of the Board of Trade would make such a good chairman of the Conservative party?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The White Paper deals with some of the issues of concern to Britain. There is no doubt that the policies advocated by the Opposition, such as the imposition of the social chapter on British industry, would do nothing to improve competitiveness.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Has not Britain's improvement in competitiveness been well shown this afternoon, for example in earlier answers about the automotive industry and industrial prospects? The very last thing that we need is the restoration of the destructive trade union practices of the past—including secondary picketing, which the Labour party is pledged to restore.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no way in which the Government will backtrack on any of the trade union legislation that we have introduced, but the same cannot be said for the Opposition. More than 40 per cent. of the value of Japanese investment stock has come to the United Kingdom in inward investment and, in 1992, some 39 per cent. of the value of United States investment stock in the European Community came to

    227
    Britain. Other countries look to the United Kingdom as a place to invest because we have created the right climate for investment.

    Life Assurance
    Mr. Denham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances a life assurance company is required to submit quarterly reports to his Department.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: The power to require insurance companies to furnish information, including the submission of quarterly returns, may be exercised on any of the grounds set out in the Insurance Companies Act 1982. This power is most frequently used following authorisation or change of control.
    Mr. Denham: Will the Minister confirm that Guardian —formerly Guardian Royal Exchange—is under constant review by his Department? Is he aware that some endowment policies sold by that company see £7 of growth in the life fund bringing only 70p of benefit to investors? Is it not one of the worst performing companies in the country and does not its appalling record of bad management and bad investment highlight another failure in the regulatory system for personal financial services? The Minister's Department monitors solvency and the regulatory organisations monitor marketing—why does no one ensure that the public get a fair deal?
    Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has been a long-standing practice of the Department of Trade and Industry—including the period when we had a Labour Government, if the hon. Gentleman's memory goes back that far—not to reveal the nature of its regulatory contact with individual companies.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the level of investment by United Kingdom manufacturing industry in the last year for which figures are available; and what is the comparable figure in real terms for 10 years previously.
    Mr. McLoughlin: In 1993, manufacturing investment was £12.8 billion, compared with £6.9 billion in 1983. This was a welcome increase in real terms of 25 per cent.
    Mr. Winterton: I welcome my hon. Friend's response, but does he accept that manufacturing industry is the sole provider of non-inflationary, sustainable growth in this country and as such requires a better deal from Government? If we are to reduce unemployment, we must regenerate our manufacturing base. Will he consider making appropriate representations within the Department and to the Cabinet through our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to ensure that the Cabinet, through our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduces capital allowances to enable British industry to invest to the level necessary to create jobs and genuine wealth?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend should not be so critical. Ours is one of the few countries in Europe seeing a reduction in unemployment. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes that. Manufacturing industry invested a greater proportion of its output in the 1980s than it did in
    228
    the 1970s. Of real importance is a stable economic background, with low inflation and low interest rates. They are the most important influences on investment.
    Mr. Burden: Is the Minister aware that Britain invests less of its national income in industry than virtually any other major industrial country and is he happy with that state of affairs?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Of course one would like more investment, and that will be achieved by making Britain an attractive place in which to invest. Government policies have gone a long way to that end. Labour relations in this country are far better now than ever they were when Labour had anything to do with the government of this country. That is an important factor when companies decide where to invest.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that British industry is responding? It knows that if it designs products that the rest of the world wants to buy, manufactures them to a high quality, sells them at competitive prices and gives good after-sales service, it will lead the world. British industry is doing that now, which is why it is leading the world. If one buys from the United Kingdom, one travels first class.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not sure that there is much that I can add to his comments.
    Mr. Robin Cook: So that the House will not be misled, will the Minister admit that the 1993 investment figure in which he just took such pride is 13 per cent. down on 1979? On present industrial trends, it will be 1999 before manufacturing investment returns to the level of 20 years before, under Labour. Is that not a more honest measure of the deep damage that the Government have done to British industry? Does the Minister have the courage to admit that?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I realise that I cannot ask questions, Madam Speaker, but the damage being done to this country is the support that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues continue to give strikers. If Britain has a reputation for strikes, it will not attract the kind of investment that both the hon. Gentleman and I want.

    Assisted Area Status Grants
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many inquiries have been received by his Department for assisted area status grants from companies in Hastings and Rye; how many have converted into firm projects; and how many grants have been given.
    Mr. Eggar: Precise figures for the number of initial telephone and written inquiries originating from Hastings and Rye are not available. Formal applications have been made, or are being worked up, in 22 cases from Hastings and Rye. Grant offers have been made in three of those cases. Two of the offers have been accepted so far.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank my hon. Friend for that updated information. Is he aware that, after a shaky start, which caused enormous upsets to businesses in Hastings and Rye, the Department's performance has improved enormously? It has improved so much that the time taken to answer a letter has been reduced by 50 per cent. Can he assure me

    229
    that, in the spirit of greater competitiveness, the Department's speed of decision making will move nearer to that of businesses?
    Mr. Eggar: The Department and I are grateful to my hon. Friend for actively pursuing her constituents' interests. We have learnt lessons about speed of response and improved the service. I am confident that we shall improve it still further. If there are any other difficulties, I am sure that my hon. Friend will inform me.

    Competition
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent initiatives he has brought in to encourage more competition.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: The White Paper on competitiveness reaffirmed the Government's commitment to maintaining competition and introducing it into new areas wherever possible.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that although part of our future lies in Europe, much of it lies in the Pacific basin, Latin America and South Africa? Those are the areas from which competition will come. If we are to compete with those emerging markets, would it not be disastrous if Brussels allowed the social charter into this country by the back door? Does my hon. Friend agree that some key directives should be renegotiated as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree. As the internal market Minister, I miss no opportunity in the Council of Ministers to put those points to our partners. In recent years, Europe has clearly exported jobs to other parts of the world outside the Community, including those that my hon. Friend named. It is vital that all European countries grasp the nettle of improving competitiveness. On-costs for employers in the United Kingdom are 25 per cent. lower than in Germany, which is a matter of increasing concern to the German Government.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that the competitiveness of British industry has been aided greatly by the efficiency improvements at Companies House and the Patent Office, which have been supported enthusiastically by the trade unions at those two agencies? Will the Minister deny a scurrilous report in The Guardian today suggesting that the President of the Board of Trade said that the trade unions at those two agencies are always against change? Will the Minister confirm that the President of the Board of Trade would never make a statement so insensitive, so untrue and so stupid?
    Mr. Hamilton: Denying a scurrilous report in The Guardian would be an act of supererogation on my part. However, I can certainly confirm that efficiency has improved greatly at Companies House under this Government and we look forward to future efficiency gains as well.
    Mr. Gallie: Has my hon. Friend seen a recent Scottish engineering report which shows that output volumes are up, capacity utilisation is up, recruitment is up and orders are up? Does that not suggest that Scottish engineering is competitive and is it not welcome news which Opposition Members would rather deny than proclaim?
    Mr. Hamilton: I have not seen the report, but I have just heard it.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Barron: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the procedure accepted by British Coal for offering individual coal mines for sale to the private sector; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eggar: British Coal has offered pits for lease and licence, not for sale. The licensing of pits to the private sector is a matter for British Coal in the light of its statutory duties.
    Mr. Barron: Is the Minister aware that British Coal announced the closure of Kiveton colliery in my constituency in April, saying that it would offer it to the private sector in September when the current work force finishes? In April, British Coal stopped the development of three roadways which would have gone into new coal seams so that there might have been something worth buying in September.
    British Coal is scuttling the collieries before they are offered to British Coal's so-called friends. Will the Minister stop that? Will he tell British Coal to take on some of the miners who worked in the headings, and who were sacked by British Coal in April, so that they can develop those coal faces? If that were to happen, the colliery might be seen as an economic unit that someone might want to run, rather than as a colliery which British Coal wants to shut and stop from providing jobs in my constituency.
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman's wild allegations would carry rather more credibility if British Coal had not already leased and licensed seven pits. It is in advanced negotiation on two other pits and it is possible that we shall have 32 pits in operation early next year. That compares very favourably with any of the predictions made by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Batiste: Does not my hon. Friend's comment about the prospect of 32 pits operating in the private sector in the near future vindicate the Government's decision that the future of coal lies in the private sector and that British industry is prepared to put its money where its mouth is to promote a profitable industry in the long term?
    Mr. Eggar: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. With the private sector willing to invest in the future of British coal, it is important that we have a level of co-operation from the unions and the work force which guarantees success on a world-competitive basis.
    Mr. Tipping: What steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure the fulfilment of his promises and those of his colleague the President of the Board of Trade that the work force and management will be in the pole position in any buy-out?
    Mr. Eggar: We have made it absolutely clear that we welcome bids from employees and management. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we are making finance available to assist in those bids. However, we have also made it clear that any bids received from those sources must be judged on their merits in comparison with other bids.

    Competitiveness
    Mr. Kynoch: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next proposes to meet the Institute of Directors to discuss industrial competitiveness.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: I maintain close contact with the Institute of Directors and discuss a wide range of issues, including industrial competitiveness.
    Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend agree that British industry needs a stable economy with low interest rates, low inflation and a stable currency, particularly for exporting, alongside a flexible labour market? Does he further agree that the proposal to reintroduce secondary picketing or to sign up to the social chapter, as proposed by Labour Front-Bench Members in their fight to gain leadership of their party, would be a total disaster for the competitiveness of British industry?
    Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Certainly, one of the greatest advantages that British industry has derived from the Conservative Government in the past 15 years is the vastly improved state of industrial relations which has been the essential concomitant of the legislation that we have put through the House. We have better industrial relations figures today than at any time since the 1870s, but in many respects it is the 1870s to which the Labour party wishes to return in terms of legislation on industrial relations and trade unions.
    Mr. Dalyell: As a Scot and a guinea pig for the poll tax, now that directors in Scotland say that they are horrified at the costs of local government reform which are coming through to them, what discussions have the Government had with directors and industrialists in England about their proposals for English local government reform? Let them be warned by what happened on the poll tax.
    Mr. Hamilton: I think that the hon. Gentleman is labouring under the illusion that I am an Environment Minister.
    Sir Michael Grylls: When does my hon. Friend expect to see completion of the internal market for telecommunications, gas and electricity? Britain could do extremely well if those markets were freed up.
    Mr. Hamilton: That is one of the items at the top of our agenda in the European Community. At the Internal Market Council in Luxembourg last week, I participated in discussions which aimed to open up those markets. As my hon. Friend says, they offer huge opportunities for British business and we are well placed to take advantage of them; all that we need is the opportunity. I am pleased to say that this is one of the instances in which we and the Commission are at one.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the ludicrous nature of the Minister's reply, I wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Madam Speaker: As it was not the hon. Gentleman's substantive question, I cannot accept that point of order.
    Ms Armstrong: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received following the publication of his White Paper on competitiveness.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The White Paper on competitiveness has been well received by a wide range of companies and trade associations.
    Ms Armstrong: Is not the Minister expressing some complacency today, given yesterday's figures which show that the trade deficit between this country and countries outside the EC has doubled? Does that not demonstrate that the Government's policies of pushing skills down, opting for a low-skill economy and going from—[Interruption.] I wish to goodness that Conservative Members would tell the truth. A low-skill economy is not the way to make this country properly competitive. Does the Minister agree that we need a highly skilled work force to ensure that we really can compete effectively?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Lady says that she wishes that Conservative Members would reflect more truthfully what is going on. The hon. Lady has not reflected very well what is going on. This country has been exceedingly successful in attracting huge inward investment which is providing jobs—jobs which have also gone to the north-east. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome that. [Interruption.] Apparently if it is not going to her constituency it does not matter—it is irrelevant. We are seeing huge inward investment into this country. If the hon. Lady's constituency cannot attract it, perhaps she should ask what her local authority is doing.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend think that a single European currency would make Britain more competitive, given that a single European currency as proposed by the Commission would require consequential increases in Community expenditure in terms of transfer payments between the richer and the poorer member states? As we have already learnt that a single monetary policy, as implemented through the exchange rate mechanism, made Britain uncompetitive, does my hon. Friend agree that a single currency would make Britain less competitive rather than more competitive?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Not surprisingly, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in saying that the time to discuss that matter is when it is a proposition or even, possibly, a reality.

    Companies House
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the registrar of companies in relation to the future status of Companies House.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: The Department is in regular close consultation with the Registrar of Companies on all issues relating to the future status of Companies House.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that it is high time that the 900 or so staff working at Companies House in Cardiff were put out of their misery as they have had the sword of potential privatisation hanging over them for far too long? Does he also agree that there is a European Court of Justice ruling that one cannot make a profit out of a regulation function with regard to dealings with companies, and that it is therefore probably not legally possible to privatise Companies House? Is it not time that

    233
    the Government accepted that position and dropped all proposals to privatise this extremely important employer and regulator of British business?
    Mr. Hamilton: I accept the point that continued uncertainty is undesirable and I will seek to resolve that uncertainty at the earliest possible moment. No decisions have yet been taken on the options, whether they be privatisation, contractorisation, management buy-out or any of the other options available. As to the impact of the European Court case, that is being closely studied.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that almost every Government owned and run organisation supposedly threatened with agency status or privatisation first resisted it and then, when it came about, found that it freed up the organisation to be of excellent service to the public? Indeed, it has been beneficial to all concerned.
    Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What we are looking for here is improvements in efficiency to bring better value for money for the customer. In the past, privatisation or contractorisation has often produced significant advantages for employees as well as for the public at large.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent meetings he has had with the chairman of British Coal to discuss pit closures.
    Mr. Eggar: Both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I meet the chairman of British Coal as necessary to discuss a variety of coal industry matters.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not tragic to tour the coalfields of Britain—a once-proud industry—and see the decimation that has gone on over the past few years with hardly any pits left and the remaining ones having been privatised and taken over, with 250 men employed where perhaps 1,500 had been employed before? Does that not contrast sharply with the fact that when the President of the Board of Trade was asked last week on radio whether he wanted another job as chairman of the Tory party he said, "No, I want to keep my present job"? We should contrast that with position of the 31,000 miners he chucked on the scrap heap.
    Mr. Eggar: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would learn to look forward, not backwards. I also wish that he would pay tribute to the work done by both central and local government to provide new opportunities for work, whether in the north-east, in Scotland, in Wales or in the central coalfield, and to the tremendous efforts made by many agencies to provide training and new jobs for miners.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real tragedy of the British coal mining industry is that it was not privatised many years earlier? Does he agree that if that had happened, working practices would now be much more up to date than they are, the stranglehold of the
    234
    National Union of Mineworkers, which has done such immeasurable damage to the industry, would have been broken, the British coal industry would have been able to compete in the modern world and, as a result, many more pits would be open today?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the great tragedies of the coal industry is exactly that. If we are able to achieve the significant productivity improvements that we have achieved over the past year or two, why was it not possible to do that 10 years or 15 years ago? I have to tell the country and the House that a lot of the blame for that lies with the NUM in particular.
    Mr. Redmond: Will the Minister explain why British Coal is closing down pits in this country and importing fuel and coal from abroad?
    Mr. Eggar: One reason why we are importing coal is that we no longer have coking coal or anthracite in significant quantities. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who know anything about the coal industry know perfectly well that that particular quality of coal has been virtually mined out over the past 200 years in this country. Opposition Members should also know that one of the major objectives of the private sector companies that have taken over the pits closed by British Coal is to provide coal to the industrial and domestic markets, which previously were not adequately competed for by British Coal.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Sir David Knox: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade maintains close contact with the CBI on a wide range of issues, including manufacturing industry.
    Sir David Knox: When my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade next meets the president of the CBI, will he discuss with him the means of ensuring that manufacturing industry performs better in the next 20 years than it has in the past 20 years, during which manufacturing output has scarcely risen?
    Mr. Eggar: One of my right hon. Friend's major objectives in the White Paper on competitiveness was to address some of the underlying issues relating to improving productivity and reducing costs throughout the British economy. I think that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the White Paper is an important statement which has been welcomed throughout the trade associations and by the CBI, and that it points the way forward.
    Several hon. Members rose —
    Madam Speaker: I shall come to the hon. Gentlemen after I have made a short statement, which is about the grouping of oral questions.

Oral Questions
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: On 23 February the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) raised a point of order asking whether it would be possible for the House as a whole to be informed which oral questions were to be grouped. This has been examined by the Procedure Committee in its fifth report, which was published last week. The Committee recommended that a provisional list, not only of groupings of oral questions but of questions unstarred or withdrawn, should be placed in a Division Lobby before the House sits. I propose to implement this recommendation.
Accordingly, with effect from the beginning of next week, a typed list of questions grouped, unstarred or withdrawn before 12 noon will be placed in the No Lobby by 1 o'clock. I would stress that this list can only be provisional since it is, of course, possible to unstar or withdraw a question right up until the time it is called. Nevertheless, I hope that this new arrangement will be of assistance to hon. Members.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Madam Speaker, may I raise a point of order of which I have given your Office notice, namely, whether the term Lord Haw-Haw is an acceptable parliamentary term as applied to those with whom one has a difference of opinion?
Madam Speaker: I try to deal with matters as they arise and not to allow contention to run into the following day. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I do not consider that that is a parliamentary term which should be used in the House. I expect Members to exercise good temper in their exchanges here and to use moderate language in the Chamber. I deprecate what was said yesterday in the exchange to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. Terry Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your protection once again for Back Benchers against the arrogance of Ministers.
This morning, in Manchester, the Minister for Roads and Traffic made an announcement about my constituency. I was told the detail of that announcement by the press. Last night the press was informed and this morning the rest of the media were informed. Indeed, one Conservative Member of Parliament was informed this morning. I received notification at 12 o'clock. I believe that that is outrageous and that when one Back Bencher is treated in such a way, the whole House is treated in such a way. I seek your protection for all Back Benchers.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am concerned to ensure that the House as a whole is informed when important statements are made. Of course, it is for Ministers to decide whether they do that from the Dispatch Box or by means of a written answer. In my view, if the announcement affected the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he should certainly have been informed before the media were informed.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following your helpful
236
announcement about questions—I realise that this is a matter partly for you and partly for the Procedure Committee—may I suggest that the final helpful step, in the age of technology when we have annunciators, would be to relay the information to the House as and when questions are withdrawn during the day, even up to 2.15 or 2.30 pm?
Madam Speaker: That would not be as easy as it sounds, but I understand that the matter is being looked into.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there any way in which we can thank the servants of this House and the other staff who have struggled in today, in defiance of the rail strike?
Madam Speaker: That is certainly not a point of order. I am sure that Members have also struggled in, and I am happy to see so many of them here.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understood that, when Front-Bench spokesmen visited one's constituency, it was normally a courtesy to write to the hon. Member concerned. Will you rule on the visits of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to our constituencies without affording us the courtesy that the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) requires?
Madam Speaker: Irrespective of whether they are Front-Bench or Back-Bench Members, when one Member visits another's constituency, it is a courtesy to tell that Member that he or she will be there.
Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning, the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee published a report condemning the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for refusing to allow it to commission a confidential attitude survey of civil servants. Will you rule on whether the Minister has any right to refuse to allow it to carry out such a survey? The Select Committee is entitled to summon the same civil servants to give evidence before it, if it so wishes, but is apparently not permitted to write to them.
As both Departments of State and trade unions frequently carry out surveys of their staff and members —on their morale and attitudes—why should not a Select Committee of this House be empowered to carry out exactly the same type of survey when it is strictly relevant to its functions? Is not that clearly an arbitrary abuse of power by the Minister to cover his embarrassment? Will you rule on whether an action of that type is a breach of the privilege of this House?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is contending that a breach of privilege has taken place, he must write to me. I was prepared to deal with his point of order, but now that he has raised an issue of privilege I must ask him to send me the full details in writing.
Mr. John Garrett: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: There can hardly be anything further as I now have a matter of privilege to deal with. If the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) writes to me, I will deal with the matter as one of privilege.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A moment ago you said that it was

237
a courtesy for hon. Members visiting other constituencies to write to the Member concerned. When you said so, I heard an Opposition Member—I am not sure who it was —say, "No way." Do you think that the House should be doing anything to enforce that, and perhaps you could advise me—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am not in favour of a great many rules and regulations and of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. I have just celebrated 21 years in this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] Whenever I have visited another Member's constituency—no matter what party he or she belongs to—I have let that Member know. That is a good standard, and I would like other Members to follow that example.
Mr. Riddick rose —
Madam Speaker: That is all I have to say on the matter.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 8 JULY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Ms Joyce Quin

Mr. Michael Stephen

Mr. Peter Hain

BILL PRESENTED
  CONTAMINATED LAND (REMEDIATION)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth, supported by Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Ms Estelle Morris, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Ms Anne Coffey, Mr. Robert Litherland, Mr. George Howarth and Mr. Harry Barnes, presented a Bill to make provision for the improved clean-up of contaminated land: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

Identity Cards
3.38 pm
Mr. Harold Elletson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a national identity card scheme, and for connected purposes.
I congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your 21st anniversary.
There is overwhelming public support for the idea of a national identity card. Millions of people were accustomed to carrying national registration cards before their abolition in 1952, and the citizens of most other European democracies carry national identity cards. In this country today, millions of people possess a range of different cards which identify them for a variety of purposes. There is nothing alien, sinister or fundamentally un-British about the concept of an identity card.
The Bill is very simple, and merely requires the Government to co-ordinate a national identity card scheme. It does not state that possession of a national identity card should be compulsory or even specify the circumstances in which its possession would be required, although I shall suggest some areas where that would not be unreasonable.
A national identity card scheme could be entirely self-financing and, far from being a threat to civil liberties, would be positive enhancement of them. The Government currently issue a number of identity documents to individual citizens for various purposes. Apart from the passport—which, incidentally, is self-financing—the most obvious of those is the driving licence, which is issued to some 32 million people. It contains a large amount of personal information, but as proof of the identity of the bearer it is virtually useless, and it is often used fraudulently in mainland Britain.
In Northern Ireland—where the driving licence contains a photograph—their fraudulent use is much less widespread. It is not surprising that the Government are actively considering the inclusion of photographs and possibly also fingerprints in such documents. After all, there seems to be little point in issuing documents which purport to identify the bearer if they are patently unable to do so.
There is currently a similar need to update and replace the British visitors passport, as the Home Affairs Select Committee recently recommended and as has been recently demonstrated by one of our EC partners, Spain, which has said that it will no longer recognise it in the future. It seems clear that there is a window of opportunity for the Government to use new technology to create an identity card which would be of enormous value to individual citizens, the Government and private sector organisations.
I am sure that what we need, and what would catch the public's imagination, is a national identity card based on smart card technology. Smart cards are extremely difficult to forge. They are the size of a credit card, but can store images of palm prints, fingerprints, eye retina patterns and photographs, as well as a large volume of other information. They can also ensure that the data is separated and can be accessed only by a series of different codes.
It would thus be possible that an identity card, driving licence or passport could also contain entirely separate banking, medical and social security information if, and only if, an individual chose to store it there. The advantage

239
obviously would be that, instead of carrying a wallet full of cards, an individual need carry only one. It would be a secure and convenient system which would be much more difficult to use fraudulently, and would in fact soon virtually wipe out credit card fraud and theft.
I am surprised that Opposition Members apparently appear intent on opposing the motion, since it is primarily designed to stamp out credit card fraud and theft. That is not an insignificant consideration because it is primarily as a means of combating fraud, rather than other types of crime, that a national identity card scheme is necessary. The police currently admit privately that more than 200,000 plastic cards are lost or stolen every week. Card fraud cost banks £192 million in 1992, which is three times as much as in 1989.
Many banks are now considering the possibility of introducing laser-etched photographs into their cards. The Royal Bank of Scotland recently had a pilot scheme which showed that it was a highly effective way of tackling fraud. The scheme cut the bank's losses through fraud by 98.9 per cent. in 1993. I believe that the Government should now be working with the banks to develop an identity card scheme which would be mutually beneficial.
There is no doubt that the Government also are losing billions of pounds every year through fraud of one sort or another, much of it due to false identity. Social security fraud costs the taxpayer £4 billion every year. The savings which the Benefits Agency was recently able to achieve of £558 million in 1992–93 and £654 million in 1993–94 are merely the tip of the iceberg. It is hardly surprising that the Government are losing so much, given that only recently it was revealed that unemployment benefit had been successfully claimed by M. Mouse, D. Duck, S. Stallone and, I believe, J. Major.
It is clearly nonsensical that that sort of widespread organised fraud, in both public and private sectors, should take place largely because of false identities. Credit and cheque-card fraud should be dealt with alongside social security fraud, by the Government in partnership with the banks. The Government should insist that all benefit claimants provide proper proof of identity by participating in a recognised national identity card scheme. Ordinary citizens should be able to rely on a secure banking system that protects them from forgery and fraud. There is no infringement of civil liberties in that; it is simple common sense. Decent people are fed up with paying criminals to defraud the system, and it is time that we stopped doing so.
While I am sure that the major advantage of a national identity card scheme would be the elimination of fraud, it would have other significant benefits, even if it were purely voluntary. For example, landlords would be able effectively to check the identity of short-term tenants, thus contributing significantly to the prevention of terrorism.
I do not accept that the costs need be prohibitive. In fact, I am sure that the scheme would be self-financing—not just because of the well-known generosity of the clearing banks, which might be expected to participate, but because of the substantial savings to the Treasury that would be achieved.
The Bill is not about restricting the freedom of the individual; it is about enhancing it. I do not see how anyone, particularly Opposition Members, can object to a voluntary scheme of this type on "civil liberties" grounds.
240
After all, which of us here would be prepared to stand up and say that he would fight for the crimes of the fraudster to go undetected, or allow the terrorist to continue to go about his murderous business hidden behind a cloak of false identity for fear of abusing his civil liberties? Our concern should be not with the civil liberties of fraudsters and terrorists, but with their victims; not with the rights of con men and criminals, but with the security of decent, law-abiding people.
We are now faced with the need to tackle crime, fraud and abuse of trust, not because the Government wish to monitor or limit the movement of our citizens but because criminals have impinged on our natural assumption that all our citizens are decent and honest. Unlike the infamous three-card trick, in which the con man always wins, this one card—a national card—will ensure that the winner is the decent British citizen.
3.47 pm
Mr. John Spellar: I shall be brief, because I do not want to impinge on the time allowed for the important debate that follows; nor, however, do I want the complacent statements of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) to go unanswered.
The hon. Gentleman slipped very easily into talking of a voluntary scheme, and trying to avoid the costs of a national identity card scheme. According to an answer given to me by his colleagues in the Home Office, setting up such a system would cost £475 million, while the annual cost of running it would be between £50 million and £100 million. Those are huge sums, and I am sure that we can all think of much better ways of spending the money.
Many of the arguments being advanced about the ease of running such a scheme are similar to the arguments about the ease of running the community charge, or poll tax. We were told that that, too, would be a simple scheme that would commend itself to all concerned. What we encountered, however, was one of the problems that any identity card scheme would pose. In reply to a question to the Department of the Environment, I was told that there was a 34 per cent. annual turnover in the community charge register across the country. When I checked with my own borough, Sandwell—a fairly stable community —I found that it had a 40 per cent. turnover. Then there are the inner London boroughs. Camden, for instance, has a 60 per cent. turnover—and its turnover is not one of the highest. Those figures come from the Department of the Environment. That is the level of change that would take place, so many of the advantages of identifying and keeping track of people start to fall down.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that social security fraud would be a main target. He should have taken note of the words of a Minister in the other place, who said that the problem was not false identity but false statements of a person's circumstances. The hon. Gentleman mentioned terrorists. Another Minister said that he could not recall a terrorist offence that would not have taken place had people been required to carry identity cards. The same applies to burglary. I doubt whether the average burglar will pack his ID card when he goes out to commit an offence.
The proposed measure is a gimmick. It is an attempt by Conservative Members and the Government to reassure ordinary citizens that they are doing something about the problems that concern people so widely. Such matters can

241
be dealt with in other ways. Further checks should be undertaken to deal with social security fraud and, on income tax, it would have helped if the Government had not encouraged the explosion of self-employment and the massive fraud that has taken place in exemption certificates —[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman believes that income tax exemption certificates can be counterfeited, how can he not believe that identity cards could be duplicated, resulting in fraud?
The Bill is no answer to dealing with many of those problems. It would be a leap in the dark and enormously expensive. That is why it should be opposed.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 89, Noes 113.

Division No. 271]

[3.51 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Hendron, Dr Joe

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Alton, David

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Ashby, David

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Batiste, Spencer

Johnston, Sir Russell

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Brazier, Julian

Kilfedder, Sir James

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Budgen, Nicholas

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Butcher, John

Lidington, David

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Marland, Paul

Churchill, Mr

Mates, Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Colvin, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Day, Stephen

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Pawsey, James

Dicks, Terry

Porter, David (Waveney)

Dover, Den

Rooker, Jeff

Duncan, Alan

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Dunn, Bob

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Elletson, Harold

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Speed, Sir Keith

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Spink, Dr Robert

Faber, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Stephen, Michael

Flynn, Paul

Sumberg, David

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Thomason, Roy

Gallie, Phil

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Garnier, Edward

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Gorst, Sir John

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Hannam, Sir John

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Harris, David

Trimble, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Tyler, Paul

Hawkins, Nick

Viggers, Peter

242

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Waterson, Nigel

Mr. John Sykes and

Whittingdale, John

Mr. Andrew Robathan.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Litherland, Robert

Adams, Mrs Irene

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Barnes, Harry

Loyden, Eddie

Benton, Joe

McAvoy, Thomas

Bermingham, Gerald

McFall, John

Blunkett, David

McNamara, Kevin

Bradley, Keith

McWilliam, John

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

Madden, Max

Burden, Richard

Mahon, Alice

Byers, Stephen

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Callaghan, Jim

Meale, Alan

Canavan, Dennis

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Church, Judith

Miller, Andrew

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Morgan, Rhodri

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Corbett, Robin

Mullin, Chris

Corbyn, Jeremy

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Cousins, Jim

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Cummings, John

O'Hara, Edward

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Olner, William

Dalyell, Tam

Parry, Robert

Davidson, Ian

Patchett, Terry

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Pickthall, Colin

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Pike, Peter L.

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

Pope, Greg

Dixon, Don

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Primarolo, Dawn

Etherington, Bill

Redmond, Martin

Fatchett, Derek

Rendel, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Foulkes, George

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Gapes, Mike

Sedgemore, Brian

Gerrard, Neil

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Simpson, Alan

Gunnell, John

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

Hain, Peter

Soley, Clive

Hall, Mike

Spellar, John

Hanson, David

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Hardy, Peter

Steinberg, Gerry

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Stern, Michael

Hinchliffe, David

Stott, Roger

Hodge, Margaret

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Timms, Stephen

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Tipping, Paddy

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Watson, Mike

Illsley, Eric

Wicks, Malcolm

Jamieson, David

Wigley, Dafydd

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Winnick, David

Jowell, Tessa

Worthington, Tony

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Khabra, Piara S.

Tellers for the Noes:

Kilfoyle, Peter

Mr. Dennis Skinner and

Kirkwood, Archy

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly negatived.

OPPOSITION DAY
  14TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Overseas Aid and Development
    4.2 pm
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. I have also had to limit speeches between the hours of 6 pm and 8 pm to 10 minutes, because of the number of Members who wish to take part in the debate.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That this House notes the projected decline in aid to developing countries, in real terms, over the next two years, the failure to target aid on those in greatest need, highlighted by the Pergau Dam affair, the failure to respond adequately to emergencies such as the current holocaust in Rwanda and the absence of any clear, co-ordinated strategy for promoting effective and sustainable development that benefits the poorest people in developing countries, and assists those countries in dealing with the problems caused by debt repayments and adverse terms of trade; and calls on the Government to bring forward a White Paper on Overseas Development at the earliest opportunity.
    Had you, Madam Speaker, selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), I would have had no difficulty in endorsing it as well.
    I address the House on this issue having had the experience of two visits to the African continent in the past two months. On those visits I saw the two dimensions of African development and the two sides of the issues that we must deal with today. In South Africa, in common with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I witnessed at first hand the triumphs of non-racial democratic change in a rich, beautiful but much-divided country.
    Mr. Graham Riddick: Looking though the list of Opposition Supply days over the past year, I notice that it is just under a year since the Opposition chose this subject for debate. I also notice that in that time there has been no debate on an Opposition Supply day on the subjects of unemployment or economic policy. Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House why?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention does not relate to the motion for today's debate. We are dealing with overseas aid. His question might be asked at some other time, but it does not relate to the subject on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Clarke: As always, Madam Speaker, your wisdom contrasts with the absurdity of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
    The peaceful transition in South Africa from apartheid to democracy was important not just for South Africa—it is an example, an inspiration and a source of hope for the continent as a whole. However, just a few weeks after my visit there I saw for myself the carnage resulting from the genocidal war in Rwanda. Seeing what is happening in those two countries concentrated my mind on how well and effectively the United Kingdom is responding both to changes for the better and for the worse in the developing world.
    I can think of no subject more important to debate than our concern about poverty at home and abroad. Those who ignore that challenge do so at their peril. In South Africa, investment in the economic and social infrastructure will
    244
    be critical for the survival and success of a new democratic society. Britain, the former colonial power which found little difficulty in continuing to trade with apartheid South Africa when she was ostracised by the rest of the world, is prepared to offer only £100 million for development assistance. That is a third of the amount that was squandered on the Pergau dam project. We can already see from the example of Gaza and Jericho in the middle east that even the best peace process in the world will falter if it is not backed by sufficient funds.
    I am delighted that even if these issues take up a whole Opposition day they will enable us to debate the important question of Rwanda, which is at last being raised in the House. The international community's political will to act, the effective delivery of protection and relief for the millions who fled their homes, and urgent programmes of assistance for neighbouring countries are relevant and profound. Britain has delivered none of the things that are essential for a speedy solution to the problems there. Should he catch your eye, Madam Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) will speak about the role of the United Nations and its agencies.
    There are two points to be made about Rwanda. First, the 1948 United Nations charter said that we would never stand aside from genocide. But that is exactly what is happening today before our very eyes. Secondly, it is disgraceful that Britain agreed to the withdrawal of most of the United Nations force, limited though it was, from Rwanda when the presence of that force would have been most valuable and especially during the days of dreadful slaughter that followed the death of the president on 6 April.
    Mr. Jim Lester: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that, according to the Secretary-General, those troops were withdrawn because their mandate did not allow them to intervene to stop the carnage? They did not depart saying, "We are not interested", but because they had no mandate from the Security Council to take the action that many of us would like to see.
    Mr. Clarke: I have a high regard for the hon. Gentleman on these issues, but I think he will agree that, sadly, the mandate has been changed time after time. It is also sad that it has not reflected the political will—nor the military will—to deal with carnage and genocide in that country. If we had only a fraction of the will which we saw in the Gulf war and the Falklands, the British people could hold their heads up high.
    What we require now—I spell it out so that there may be no doubt—is not the dispatch of troops from western Europe; we need full logistical support for the African troops by the United Nations and a more substantial British contribution to humanitarian aid.
    Unless there is any doubt, let me make it plain on behalf of the Opposition that we regard the French initiative as being fraught with difficulty, if only because clearly there are grave questions about their neutrality in Africa. We want the United Nations' impact to be effective, worth while and supported by Great Britain and the western nations in terms of the necessary equipment.
    I turn to the impact of the carnage on neighbouring countries, some of which I have recently visited. Serious problems exist in Tanzania, Uganda, Zaire and Burundi and the potential for an explosion is sad in the extreme.

    245
    Let us reflect on the international community's inability to deal with the genocide in Rwanda. A few weeks ago, I visited Uganda and in particular south Uganda on the borders of Rwanda and Zaire. It was an extremely distressing experience. The local paper in Kampala, The Sunday Vision, greeted me with the headline:
    "Rwanda: 1 million feared killed".
    I do not know whether the figures are accurate, but I know that genocide is taking place and that we should be doing something about it.
    I saw too, sadly, the dramatic evidence of 40,000 bodies floating in Lake Victoria. I saw the efforts of the local people to provide mass graves, in one case for 2,700 people. I saw how inadequate were the resources in their excellent attempts to respond and I saw the refugee camp in Kisoro, where more than 5,000 people sought to exist. Many of the children were in tattered rags, their parents pleading, begging for water, for food and for blankets for the cold evenings and I regretted that I saw no British presence there.
    If there were 40,000 bodies floating in the Thames or the Clyde, we would rightly proclaim it as a national disaster; we would have said that we did not have the infrastructure to deal with it—nor do the neighbouring states, particularly Uganda.
    In an earlier visit to Uganda, accompanied by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, I saw the evidence of the impact of AIDS. There were thousands of orphans looking after orphans, and grandparents looking after 15 or 16 children, with the questions unanswered as to what happens next. I saw, too, in Uganda the evidence of 16 districts suffering heavily from famine, with people already dying. This must be known to the ODA. Britain had contributed to two of those 16 regions.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When the hon. Gentleman was out there, did he have the opportunity of visiting Zaire? When I visited there, I found that the president had just spent £18 million on a new palace for himself.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend was talking about Uganda.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No, he was talkingabout other countries as well. Zaire spent only £1 million a year on the national health service. That is why Zaire is a centre for AIDS, which is spreading to the rest of Africa.
    Mr. Clarke: I do not want to score political points—an easy thing to do—in such a serious debate. If what the hon. Lady says is true, I deplore it. I am willing to listen to her evidence, as I hope she is willing to listen to mine. I shall deal with the general point she raised later, when I hope that I shall command her support.
    I referred to 16 districts where famine is firmly and clearly established, yet Britain contributed to only two—Soroti and Kumi. The newspaper that I mentioned published photographs of emaciated and starving children in Teso and Karamoja. I am trying to be fair, but when I visited that area I was given to understand that not one penny had been received from the ODA, which is wholly unacceptable.
    It must be said that the Government's response to these matters has been lethargic in the extreme. Neighbouring countries have to deal with difficult domestic issues day after day and they are not helped by the problem of international debt. That issue is rightly dealt with in each
    246
    of our overseas development debates and I would welcome debating it today. Uganda spends 30 per cent. of its income servicing the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and other commercial interests.
    Of course, the problem is far wider than that. In 1992, developing countries repaid £100 billion interest on their debts, well over twice the amount they received in aid. I hope that we hear no more of the nonsense that charity begins at home, when clearly our international institutions are exploiting former colonial territories.
    Mr. Phillip OppenheimI thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. Was not a great deal of the debt to which he referred incurred in building grandiose industrial projects during the 1960s and 1970s? Has he seen the recent World bank report, which shows that the developing countries that followed market-oriented policies have done a great deal better than those that followed the policies of centrally planned economies, nationalisation and socialism? It is the countries that followed the latter policies which have incurred huge debts. That should raise some question in the minds of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends about the effectiveness of socialist policies in general.
    Mr. Clarke: I have certainly seen the recent World bank report. If the hon. Gentleman spares himself the time to go to the Library and read it, he will find little support for his proposition.
    The Government's tepid amendment to our motion suggests that we should deal with the issue of debt—so flippantly dealt with by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim)—on the Trinidad terms. No doubt the Minister will refer to that—[Interruption.] I should be happy to give way to any Conservative Member who wishes to intervene. Their attempts to disrupt the order of the House, especially in such a debate, are quite unacceptable.
    The Trinidad terms proposed by the Prime Minister, which are mentioned clearly in the Government's amendment, were to write off two thirds of bilateral aid, while the terms offered so far have been a 50 per cent. write-off at best. Even the full Trinidad terms would not begin to deal with the problem. Do the Government deny the findings of the World bank report in February, to which the hon. Member for Amber Valley referred? In case the hon. Gentleman has forgotten, I remind him and the House that it stated:
    "Only six of the twenty-one severely indebted low-income, sub-Saharan African countries could achieve a sustainable position even with the"
    full Trinidad terms,
    "while nine would still have a"
    debt service ratio
    "in excess of 300 per cent. of exports."
    The Trinidad terms do nothing to help countries faced with enormous debts to multilateral bodies such as the World bank and the IMF. While Ministers dwell on the extremely limited success of the Trinidad terms, severely indebted countries continue to accumulate fresh arrears that are greater than the debts written off.
    If the Government have no fresh initiatives, we can only conclude that they have no strategy for dealing with the debt crisis facing the world's poorest countries. Will the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office or

    247
    the Minister who replies to the debate say whether the Government are prepared to take any new initiative to aid relief on a multilateral or bilateral debt?
    Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that, following the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the Trinidad terms, the Government have so far cancelled £1 billion of debt from the poorest countries?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I reported the views of the World bank, and not many people would argue that it is the most progressive of bodies. It acknowledges the limitations of the Trinidad terms in a way that the House will recognise.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does not that £1 billion contrast unfavourably with the fact that, over the past few years, the Tory Government have written off £5,000 million of debts for the top four clearing banks —National Westminster, Midland, Lloyds and Barclays? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] If that kind of money were used to help developing countries, much of the misery that my hon. Friend saw on his travels would be removed.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. Since I entered the House in 1982, I have found that he has shown far greater interest in third-world matters than Conservative Members who have been interrupting.
    As to the Government's record on overseas aid—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clarke: Yes, but as I have been particularly generous in giving way so far, I hope that the House will then allow me to continue my speech.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I was a member of the European Parliament's development committee, as was my husband. I have visited the countries in question and take a considerable interest in them. What concerns me about the Trinidad terms is that we have kept our part of the bargain but that other countries have not. We have not enjoyed the full benefit of the Trinidad terms.
    Mr. Clarke: I wish that were the case. Any examination of the Trinidad terms shows that what Britain has offered so far falls far short of what was promised by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister—but that will come as no surprise to the House.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the Government parade around the world their supposed help with debt, they have done nothing but undermine the real prices paid for commodities to countries that are trying to get out of debt in the first place? Far from growing, many African economies are getting smaller because of the reduced prices paid for vital commodities.
    Mr. Clarke: I could not agree more, as is shown by the evidence in African countries that I visited. Uganda, for example, to deal with the problem of falling commodity prices, has been compelled to introduce health service and education charges which hon. Members on both sides of the House would find unacceptable for Great Britain.
    248
    Let us consider the Government's record on overseas aid. The House recognises the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent., which we are told all parties in the House claim they are committed to achieving. Under Labour, we had reached 0.51 per cent., more than three quarters of the UN target, and it was increasing. Under this Government, our contribution has been reduced to a pathetic 0.31 per cent., which is less than half the UN target in 1992. The figures for 1993—
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clarke: I will not give way again. Conservative Members should be patient. I have been particularly generous so far.
    The figures for 1993 are likely to be no better. The figures for this year and next year are likely to be even worse. In 1979, Britain was the largest donor of the G7 nations and the most generous of the world's richest countries. We have now fallen to fifth place out of seven, a record of which the Conservative party can hardly be proud. From being one of the leaders in development, we are increasingly becoming one of the also-rans.
    As well as considerably reducing the volume of British aid, the Government have changed the way in which aid is divided up. Eighteen months ago at the Edinburgh summit, the Prime Minister committed himself to very large increases in European Union aid. The consequence of that, without an increase in resources, must be cuts in the bilateral budget, cuts in the Overseas Development Agency itself, cuts in our support for the UN and UN agencies such as UNICEF and cuts in respect of other multilateral agencies such as the World bank's development wing, the International Development Association.
    As the House will know, negotiations for the next replenishment of IDA funds will begin later this year. Consequently, I want to ask the Government and the two Ministers who will be involved in the debate a specific question about the 11th replenishment. Will they cut our percentage contribution, or will they make a commitment to no further cuts?
    Last year, the Government abolished the separate Budget headings for aid to developing countries and assistance to eastern Europe. Aid to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union is increasing from £188 million in 1992–93 to £331 million in 1995–96. Promises that that would not be at the expense of developing countries have, in our experience, simply proved to be hollow. Of course, there is a need for assistance to eastern Europe, but not at the expense of even poorer people elsewhere. It cannot be right that sub-Saharan Africa, where less than half the children receive education, should lose out to eastern Europe, where literacy is almost 100 per cent.
    We move our motion in the knowledge that world poverty in the modern age is entirely unacceptable. We see it as one of the greatest challenges of our time and as a threat to peace. I do not apologise for asking for a crusade against world poverty. We must tell ourselves that it simply cannot be right that 80 per cent. of the world's resources are consumed by 20 per cent. of the world's population. We cannot be complacent about the fact that every year an additional 26 million people, equivalent to almost half the population of Britain, experience absolute poverty.

    249
    When I was elected to the House in the early 1980s, our debates on the subject tended to be dominated—and rightly so—by the Brandt report. The response to that report included two massive lobbies, amounting to 30,000 people, to the House in the 1980s. That led to the Commission, after other international reaction, publishing a second report, entitled "A Common Crisis". In his introduction to the second report, the late Willy Brandt said:
    "Every two seconds of this year a child will die of hunger or disease. And no statistic can express what it is to see even one child die…to see the uncomprehending panic in eyes which are the clear and lucid eyes of a child."
    I believed then that that is why we place such emphasis on poverty and why we have a duty to do so today.
    More than 60 per cent. of the populations of the least developed countries are living in absolute poverty. That is not reflected in the present priorities of the Government's aid programme. Targeting the poor means not only delivering aid to the poorest countries of the world, but making sure that aid is delivered to the poorest people within those countries.
    In order to focus aid programmes on reducing poverty, we need to know how our aid is being spent. I welcome the introduction of the policy information marker system, or PIMS, which identifies what proportion of the ODA budget is allocated to each of the Department's seven objectives, but frankly it does not go far enough. Despite PIMS, the Government still do not know how much of their aid is reducing poverty. They still have no idea of who actually benefits from British taxpayers' money.
    I give one example. In another place last year, Baroness Chalker said that about 30 per cent. of our bilateral aid was spent on the basic needs of health care and education. This year's ODA report said that the proportion spent on education alone was 17 per cent. But if we want to know how much aid was spent on improving basic education for children and adults in order to reduce poverty, those figures are no help at all. The reality is that less than 6 per cent. of education spending in the aid budget in 1991–92 was spent on primary and adult basic education.
    If we want our aid to focus on reducing poverty, it is those aspects that matter most. In particular, we should make a greater contribution to the education of women and girls. Female education is one of the most important commitments that a developing country can make to its future. Those policies must clearly be viewed as essential in the long term—for example, nutrition, family planning, child health and women's rights are profoundly affected by whether a country educates its girls. I do not believe that we have established a priority in that respect. It is still the case that, in sub-Saharan Africa, only 40 per cent. of girls receive any form of education, and in south-east Asia the figure is only 53 per cent. Our education aid budget should address such issues, but, frankly, it does not.
    In a speech to the Overseas Development Institute last week, which I attended, Baroness Chalker made much of how the ODA could teach others how to improve their aid programmes. For example, she said that the European Union could learn from us about focusing aid on poverty reduction. Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the book of the World bank. Since 1991, the development wing of the bank has assessed all its development projects according to their impact on poverty. The programme of targeting interventions, or PTI, gives priority to projects that are specifically targeted at those living in absolute poverty and
    250
    to projects that have a general benefit for the community, but, rightly, a disproportionately high level of benefit for the poor.
    Mr. WilliamCash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because I know of his genuine interest in these matters.
    Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, regardless of whether the World bank focuses on poverty, there is a substantial problem with regard to World bank debt—that countries such as Uganda must pay as much as one third of their total revenue in the repayment of debt to the World bank? Will the hon. Gentleman encourage the World bank to suspend that debt to help such countries to improve their economies?
    Mr. Clarke: I recognise the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. If he had been here earlier, he would have heard me make precisely that point.
    If the World bank can deal with projects which have a genuine benefit to the community but which rightly discriminate disproportionately in terms of benefit to the poor, I see no reason why the ODA cannot do the same. I ask the Government a specific question: will they introduce in their development programme a system of monitoring or targeting to reduce poverty, such as the one which they agreed to the World bank adopting three years ago? Frankly, that would not have gone through if the British had not agreed to it.
    It is also clear that if we are to achieve poverty reduction in our aid programme, we must involve the poor themselves. Participation of local people at all stages of projects is absolutely crucial. That includes consultation on suitability, research and design. If we are serious about helping people to escape poverty by their own efforts, it is manifestly essential that we take their views seriously when it comes to designing projects. I have a further question for the Minister: what proportion of the ODA's bilateral projects involve participation of local communities at the design stage, and what are the Government's plans to increase that?
    To improve the quality of aid and to achieve a proper poverty focus also requires more openness and accountability in the Government's decision-making process. Last week, Baroness Chalker said that this was also an area where the ODA—as she put it—already excelled. I find that hard to accept. If we had an open and accountable decision-making process, a decision such as that on Pergau would never have been approved.
    If Baroness Chalker meant that the Government would learn the lessons of Pergau, and that one of the lessons of Pergau is the need for disclosure of information, that is all well and good and we welcome that repentance. If that is what the Government mean, presumably they will agree to make project information available to interested parties when a project is in preparation. They will also agree that after a project has been approved, the appraisals of its effectiveness should be made public after any confidential information has been omitted. I therefore ask the Government a further question: will they support the release of project information documents and project appraisal documents for all the development initiatives funded by the ODA?

    251
    In making these proposals to improve the work of the ODA, I do not in any way understate the tremendous commitment and high quality of the people who serve in the development field. Indeed, one of the main purposes of bringing forward the debate is to protect and strengthen those who work in the ODA and whose influence extends elsewhere. I am afraid that that does not always appear to be the priority of Ministers.
    As part of the ideologically driven interference by the Tory party in the work of the Department, I understand that a new approach to project preparation and management has been introduced. It comes all the way from the United States of America and is inspired by an organisation with the title of Team Technologies Incorporated. I have here the job description for the post of project preparation facilitator, which was introduced into the ODA under this exciting new initiative. Hon. Members will be delighted to learn that one of the requirements for the post is proven capacity
    "to communicate orally very effectively and with enthusiasm, bilaterally and in the training room."
    In other words, the ability to talk. With leadership like that, we can see that the future of Britain's reputation in development will be safe in their hands.
    However, development is a serious subject. It is a very serious matter that the Government have admitted that they tolerated a linkage between British aid expenditure and the sale of arms. It is a serious matter that thousands of the world's children are killed or severely disabled every year by the many millions of land mines that have been laid in developing countries in the past 30 years. It is a very serious matter that the Government continue to equivocate on the issue of land mine exports, even though the ODA recognises that land mines are one of the greatest obstacles to post-war reconstruction in developing countries. Therefore, it is with the utmost seriousness that I call on the Government urgently to review their policy on land mines and to give the highest priority to the protection of innocent men, women and children.
    It is also extremely serious that the latest reports from Ethiopia suggest that that country is about to face a famine even more severe than that of 1984–85. I welcome today's announcement of a further 20,000 tonnes of food aid to Ethiopia, although its timing is extremely interesting. However, the number of people at risk is between 6 million and 7 million and a much larger response from the whole international community to the impending crisis in Ethiopia is clearly required. Therefore, I ask the Government what more they intend to do and what steps they intend to take to secure an adequate response from the European Union as a whole.
    I referred earlier to Willy Brandt's introduction to the important and moving document, practical though it was, "A Common Crisis". I conclude with his conclusion. He said:
    "A new century nears, and with it the prospects of a new civilization. Could we not begin to lay the basis for that new community with reasonable relations among all people and nations, and to build a world in which sharing, justice and freedom, and peace prevail?"
    That is why we challenge poverty wherever it exists. It is an evil whether it is in Britain or overseas. We will fight poverty for all we are worth and fight injustices wherever
    252
    they occur. To do that, we need a strategy for the future of British development policy such as only a White Paper can provide. That is why I commend our motion to the House.
    4.43 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'supports the Government's clear strategy to support sustainable economic and social development, particularly in the poorest countries; commends the lead the Prime Minister has taken through his Trinidad Terms initiative, from which 22 countries now benefit, to reduce the debt burden of developing countries; welcomes the role played by the Government in the successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round, which will improve trading opportunities for developing countries and help them generate more of the resources they need for their development; commends its substantial and effective aid programme and in particular the use it makes of the expertise of British institutions, companies and non-governmental organisations; and welcomes the fact that the Government now publishes more information about the aid programme than ever before.'.
    I am grateful to the Opposition, and to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this very important matter this afternoon. The Government's policy towards developing countries is clear and straightforward: to help them to help themselves. We believe that it is right to use a portion of the country's wealth to help poorer countries and that it is strongly in our interests as a major trading nation that there should be greater stability and prosperity in the developing world.
    Long-term economic growth and good government are central to achieving that stability. The past few decades have shown that sensible economic policies can produce economic growth. Bad policies lead to economic stagnation and decline, with countries unable to provide for their growing populations. Good government, too, is vital; efficient and accountable government with respect for human rights.
    I endorse what the hon. Member for Monklands, West said about South Africa and the recent elections there. They are a milestone in the march towards a free and non-racial democratic society.
    Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any way in which we shall be able to turn that into tangible form? One obviously endorses entirely his sentiments, but now that we have the new South Africa, will we be able to manifest that, as it were?
    Mr. Goodlad: There are important challenges and South Africans will look to their friends in the international community to help dismantle the apartheid legacy and rebuild the country. The South African Government's reconstruction and development programme provides the basis for that. Our aid since 1979 has been a demonstration of our commitment to help the transition process. For example, we have trained more than 1,000 non-white South Africans a year for their rightful role in government and society. The present South Africa can count on our support for sound policies.
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 4 May that we expected to provide £100 million of aid over the next three years. Our objectives will include good governance, including public administration and police reform, education, health and the promotion of small

    253
    businesses. We hope to build on the work that we have already done. In addition, investment by the private sector is crucial to sustainable economic growth. We are already discussing the priorities for aid with the new Government and we shall continue to work with South African non-governmental organisations where appropriate.
    On a personal basis, having done voluntary service overseas in South Africa in the early 1960s, I am glad to see VSO back in South Africa and that normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
    The House will recognise what progress there has been in the developing world as a whole. During the 25 years to 1990, GDP growth in low and middle income countries was almost 5 per cent. per year. The growth in per capita incomes was almost 2.5 per cent. At that rate of growth, per capita incomes double in 30 years. The United Nations development programme's human development index rose from 25 per cent. in 1960 to 60 per cent. in 1992. Other achievements have helped to improve the living standards of people in developing countries. A dramatic improvement in agricultural yields and in adequate food supply has led to the virtual elimination of famine in south Asia and China.
    According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 1965 only about 25 countries met their daily per capita calorie requirements. By 1990, that figure had doubled to 50. There has been significant progress in improving health. In the past three decades, average life expectancy in developing countries has increased from 51 to 64 years.
    Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned UNDP and talked about poor people's basic needs. Can he explain why, according to UNDP, only 6.6 per cent. of British overseas aid is focused on poor people's basic needs of clean water, health care, primary school education and so on, whereas Denmark manages to focus 25 per cent. of its overseas aid on poor people's basic needs? Why is the United Kingdom's overseas aid programme skewed so that it focuses so little of its aid on those needs?
    Mr. Goodlad: I will come to the question of poverty a little later. Britain has one of the best records—among the OECD's Development Assistance Committee donors—of allocating aid to the poorest countries. In each of the past five years, between 80 per cent. and 85 per cent. of our bilateral aid which is allocatable by income group has been spent in low-income countries—those with an income per capita of less than $765.
    The British aid programme tackles poverty at all levels: the direct poverty reduction level, often with our partners in non-governmental organisations; and the sectoral level, with aid to improve reforms, to help with education and water supplies, with humanitarian aid and with aid for broader policy and institutional reforms, which help to bring faster, broad-based, labour-intensive growth with widespread benefits for poor people
    The rate of infant mortality has nearly halved. Since 1980, the proportion of families with access to safe drinking water has risen from 38 per cent. to 68 per cent. in south-east Asia, from 66 per cent. to 78 per cent. in Latin America, and from 32 per cent. to 43 per cent. in Africa. Enrolment rates in primary and secondary eduction have increased.
    Mr. Tony Worthington: Why is the Minister claiming credit for that when our contribution has fallen?
    Mr. Goodlad: Our contribution has increased this year and will increase next year.
    There has also been encouraging progress in the demographic transition in developing countries. Family sizes have dropped rapidly throughout Asia and parts of Latin America. The average number of children per woman in developing countries has dropped by a third, falling from more than six to below four.
    Politically, there has been a widespread move towards democratic and accountable government—for example, in Latin America and in a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Between half and three quarters of the world's population now live under pluralistic and democratic regimes. Last year, elections were held in 45 countries—in some, for the first time.
    Ms Diane Abbott: How can the Minister claim that all those welcome phenomena are due to British Government policy? We await his claim that the Government are responsible for the sun rising and setting every day. There have been positive developments in the third world, but they are no thanks to the Government and their appalling record on aid.
    Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Lady is entitled to her view.
    Change has been most dramatic in east and south-east Asia, where there has been development at a rate unparalleled in history. During the past 25 years, many of those countries have grown, from being poor by any standards to approaching or in some cases passing living standards in OECD countries. They are formidable competitors in their own right.
    That experience is now spreading. In south Asia there is a growing commitment to economic reform. Countries are starting to reap the benefits. India—for some years our biggest aid recipient—has seen an eightfold growth in foreign investment. Growth has doubled during the past three years and India's export growth is forecast at more than 13 per cent. this year.
    Those in favour of protectionism may quail at the emergence of those new competitors, but it is clear evidence that countries pursuing the right sort of policies can develop successfully and it is a development that we should welcome. Yes, they present competitive challenges, but they also present rapidly increasing markets for our trade and investment.
    The most important single factor in determining whether countries develop successfully is their Government's actions and policies. Do those provide a framework in which individuals and communities can help themselves? Do they encourage wealth creation? It is both wrong and patronising to see the developed world as being solely responsible for the fate of the developing world. The successful developing countries are increasingly earning their own way in the world through trade and through rapidly increasing private investment to finance their development.
    One encouraging feature has been the substantial increase in the flow of private finance to developing countries. The OECD estimates that total resource flows to the developing world rose by $42 billion in 1992, to $176 billion—a 23 per cent. real-terms increase. Virtually all of

    255
    that growth was attributable to the large expansion of private finance flows, which rose by nearly 50 per cent. The World bank expects private finance flows to have exceeded official flows in 1993.
    To take two examples, although world-wide foreign direct investment fell in 1991 and 1992, flows of direct investment into the developing world increased. Portfolio equity investment soared by more than 60 per cent. in 1992 as new stock markets opened, many in developing countries.
    Dr. Kim Howells: I am sure that few hon. Members present will not welcome those figures, but will the Minister make it clear that much of that money is going to a few markets only? It is going mainly to the south-east Asian countries—the Pacific tigers—and not to Africa, which is what worries us.
    Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Certain developing countries, such as India, have been very aid dependent, but are beginning to attract flows of private investment, by the methods that I am attempting to describe. We want to help other countries, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, to reach a position where they can collect such flows of private investment. That is an important point.
    British companies and financial institutions have played a major part in that flow—accounting for around half the European Community total. That clear evidence of their increasing attractiveness for private investment and lending is one reason for a degree of greater optimism about the prospects for developing countries. That is a very important change.
    Successes in development must not obscure the massive needs that many of the poorest people in the poorest countries still have. Progress has not been uniform. More than 1 billion people in the world are still in absolute poverty—70 per cent. of them are in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. A key element of our strategy is, therefore, to focus our aid where it is most needed—on the poorest. Those countries do not yet have access to private investment. Many of the poorest countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, have not benefited from the increase in flows of private finance that we have seen.
    Our strategy to help developing countries is clear and has a number of strands. First, developing countries need peace and security. That is not something that can be imposed from outside, but the United Kingdom's role in the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Commonwealth makes a major contribution to the international effort to create a more stable and more peaceful world, and our armed forces provide a highly effective and highly valued presence in many peacekeeping forces.
    Secondly, many countries need debt relief. For the poorest, most indebted countries, debt repayments continue to pose a massive burden. They swallow up resources which could otherwise be used to finance productive investment and thus raise living standards. If a country is not making repayments, that presents a major obstacle to its receiving renewed external finance other than aid. Again, that is an area in which we have taken the
    256
    lead. We have relieved developing countries of the burden of £1.1 billion of old aid loans. All our aid to those countries is on grant terms.
    We have constantly led the way in promoting international agreement on debt relief for the poorest and most indebted countries through the Toronto terms in 1988, the Trinidad terms in 1991, and now in our push for improved Trinidad terms. The current terms have so far benefited 22 of the poorest, most indebted countries. More than $2.7 billion will be forgiven over the lifetime of those agreements. We believe that more needs to be done and are pressing other creditors to agree to implement full Trinidad terms. We must move forward, with others, to maximise the benefits to indebted countries.
    Mr. Cash: On that point and on the very satisfactory arrangements that we have made in regard to Trinidad, does my right hon. Friend agree with my earlier argument about the World bank? Will he do everything that he can to encourage it to adjust its arrangements to suspend debt where necessary, and where appropriate circumstances apply, in countries that are helping to help themselves?
    Mr. Goodlad: Yes. On the Trinidad terms, we recognise the seriousness of the debt situation of the poorest, most indebted countries in Africa, which is reflected in the World bank report, and the need for the most generous levels of debt reduction, under the Trinidad terms, on a case-by-case basis. We shall continue to press our partners to take the same view. We regard it as important that multilateral debts are serviced to maintain the integrity of the institutions, but generous balance of payments aid to those countries pursuing economic reform is designed to permit such debt servicing, as well as meeting their import requirements.
    I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) about Uganda's heavy debt burden, but action on bilateral debt through the Paris Club will be the most effective way to tackle the problem. Full Trinidad terms—we would like Uganda to be one of the first beneficiaries if these are agreed—would release more money for multilateral debt servicing and other needs.
    A critical issue is the ability to pay, and donors have been careful to ensure that Uganda has no balance of payments crisis. Altogether it received £244 million more in 1992 than it paid. This report is very flexible and can be used to service multilateral debt if Uganda so chooses.
    Thirdly, developing countries need freer trade. Opening markets is probably the most important single thing that the developed world can do for developing countries as a whole and for the former eastern bloc. None worked harder than the UK in pushing for a succesful outcome to the GATT Uruguay round.
    The Uruguay round presents opportunities to all countries and should be seen as a threat by no one. Certainly various studies have suggested that the benefits to developing countries will be unevenly spread. But the increased world prosperity which a successful Uruguay round will bring is good news for all the world and gives all countries the opportunity to benefit—provided they pursue the right mix of economic policies to enable them to do so.
    Mr. John Denham: The Minister has referred to various studies which generally show that African countries will be worse off in absolute terms as a result of the GATT negotiations because the

    257
    relative advantage of the Lomé preferences will be lost. Will the Minister give a commitment to make sure that those countries are compensated for the loss they will suffer under the new trading arrangements?
    Mr. Goodlad: The recent OECD-World bank study on the round concluded that the proposed liberalisation of trade in manufactured and agricultural products would raise incomes in non-OECD countries by some $78 billion a year. [Interruption.] I will answer the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The House does not need a running commentary from hon. Members.
    Mr. Goodlad: The report concluded that developing countries would suffer most from a continuation of protectionism or, worse still, an intensification of protectionism.
    However, we agree that the effects on some developing countries will need to be looked at in the light of the real concern they have expressed, for example, about the erosion of their advantages in terms of tariff preferences. At the European Community-African Caribbean Pacific council in April we endorsed a commitment to do that, a commitment which was already enshrined in the fourth Lomé convention.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: What proposals will the Government make to assist the countries in the Caribbean which are particularly badly hit, as well as those in Africa?
    Mr. Goodlad: That is a matter for the Lomé review.
    Particular concern has been expressed about the difficulties which net food importing developing countries may face if world food prices rise as a result of cuts in subsidies under the Uruguay round agricultural agreement. But the GATT agreement includes provisions to assist net food importers in such circumstances and, in the longer term, higher prices should stimulate agricultural production in developing countries and so boost rural economies.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am a little worried by the facile assumption that increased world trade will inevitably lead to a better world for the people who live in it. Is not it true that constant and massive expansion of world trade could involve constantly increasingly transportation unless there is particular application to the question of the environmental effects? Is not constantly increasing transportation one of the great threats to the environment? Is not it time we were talking seriously about internalising the environmental costs of transportation and of trade into prices so that we could have a different and more decentralist pattern of production, consumption and distribution?
    Mr. Goodlad: I think that the increase in world trade will benefit all countries, but it will be uneven in its impact. I accept that transportation increases will have environmental effects, and I shall say something about environmental matters in a moment.
    Ms Abbott: On the specific point of the GATT round, is the Minister aware of the particular problems in the eastern Caribbean, which almost wholly depends on the export of bananas for its balance of trade? When will Ministers face up to the fact that one cannot look at the
    258
    issues of aid and development in isolation? If the small agriculturists in the countries of the eastern Caribbean are no longer able to sell their bananas, many of them will instead turn to drug production. We cannot look at aid policies in isolation, because they also impact on issues such as the international drugs trade and the refugee question.
    Mr. Goodlad: I quite agree that we cannot look at aid issues in isolation, and I am trying to demonstrate that a large number of factors are involved. I hope that we have fought a good fight for Caribbean banana producers.
    Mr. Lester: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, as far as the GATT round is concerned, developing countries co-operated fully in the negotiations for the first time? They have been the largest group in the negotiations and they are queuing up to join the World Trade Organisation. That hardly suggests that those countries have all the fears which are being expressed by Opposition Members. The House had a debate on GATT last week.
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable on these matters and he makes an extremely accurate point as usual.
    We welcome the establishment of the World Trade Organisation which will put the GAIT on a permanent institutional footing for the first time ever.
    Fourthly, we have a substantial aid programme, one that has been highly commended for its effectiveness. As the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD recently reported:
    "The UK has a highly concessional, well organised bilateral programme based on substantial natural expertise and is orientated towards the poorest developing countries."
    At over £2.2 billion this year, it is the sixth biggest programme in the world. I understand that new OECD figures are likely to be released tomorrow showing that in 1993 the UK's Aid-GNP ratio of 0.31 per cent. was above the average for all donors, and that the UK was one of seven donors who increased their aid. At a time when many donors are facing pressures on their budgets, that is clear evidence of the Government's commitment to a substantial aid programme.
    One key factor in the programme's effectiveness is that it is closely focused on where it will do most good. It is targeted closely on the specific needs of developing countries. Focusing our aid on the individual needs of countries means taking account of the changes in the developing world which I described earlier.
    For the more successful and better-off developing countries, well-targeted aid has played a major part in helping their countries develop. In many of them it continues to do so. But with their increasing access to private investment, many no longer need large scale concessional finance to finance their development.
    Aid is equivalent to less than 1 per cent. of the GNP of Asian developing countries, and less than 0.5 per cent. of that of Latin American developing countries. In those countries, our aid strategy therefore is increasingly to provide advice and know-how, and filling skills gaps in areas central to their development.
    We have also helped the vital transition to market economies and political pluralism in east and central Europe and the former Soviet Union.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Goodlad: I must make some progress.
    That has involved help through multilateral channels and through our bilateral programme, the know-how fund, which seeks to harness British expertise to help this vital transition. Our know-how fund was a pioneering idea, and has offered a model of technical assistance which others have tried to copy. Much of the know-how fund is directed at bringing about systemic change, particularly in areas central to the functioning of the market economy such as privatisation, banking and capital markets. In Russia, we are co-operating with the International Finance Corporation in launching and testing a system for land privatisation which has been adopted by the Russian Government as a model for the country.
    Longer-term institutional development is not neglected, however. A major part of know-how fund resources is devoted to training, including the setting up and strengthening of local institutions. In Poland, we have helped to set up a network of four regional management centres to train a new generation in private investment. Nor do we neglect the importance of the political transition to democracy. In Russia, for example, our programme for democracy is supporting a variety of parliamentary exchanges and educational programmes involving democratic institutions and principles. The know-how fund's responsiveness and effectiveness in supporting reform are known and recognised throughout the region.
    I referred earlier to the continuing needs of the poorest countries. Our strategy is to focus most of our concessional finance assistance on those countries whose needs are greatest and which are unable to attract significant private finance. Some 80 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to the poorest countries—a larger proportion than is provided by any other G7 donor. Our 10 biggest aid recipients are all low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia: our record stands comparison with that of any major donor. All our aid is on grant terms, thus avoiding adding to the debt burden of developing countries.
    In those countries, sustainable development and the reduction of poverty are at the centre of our effort. Our aid is targeted on areas that were recognised at the United Nations conference on environment and development at Rio as being central to promoting sustainable development —such as support for sound economic policies that encourage wealth creation, and helping developing countries to improve the education and health services that they provide.
    An important example is the increasing part that we are playing in the effort to help developing countries to address the population pressures that many of them face. The world's population is currently 5.6 billion; it is growing by almost 1 billion each decade, and could double by the year 2050.
    Recent decades have seen remarkable progress in the provision of family planning information and services for millions of people in developing countries, but population growth in such countries is at an historic high. More than 90 per cent. of the annual increase in population of over 90 million takes place in the countries that can least afford to provide for their new citizens. In the poorest countries, population growth threatens the prospect of achieving sustainable dvelopment and reducing poverty. Half a million women in developing countries die each year from pregnancy-related causes, including unsafe and often
    260
    illegal abortions. There are at least 250 million cases of sexually transmitted disease each year, and more than 14 million people are now estimated to be infected with HIV.
    Providing safe, effective and affordable reproductive health services, including family planning, will lead to improvements in the health of women and children and reduce the number of maternal and child deaths.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is focusing his remarks on the question of population. I know that, as a founder member of the all-party group on population and development, he has a personal interest in the matter.
    Many of us agree with my right hon. Friend that over-population is a root cause of poverty. Does that not make it all the more surprising that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), whose speech was made in all sincerity, made no reference to the population question?
    Mr. Goodlad: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right: I was a founder secretary of that all-party group, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). When I entered the Government, I was succeeded by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), who is now Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We attended the 1979 United Nations conference in Columbo, to which I believe an extremely distinguished contribution was made by Madam Speaker herself.
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) did not mention population in his speech; he could not mention everything, and I cannot do so either. It is an important matter, however. I believe that providing the services that I have mentioned will enable women to take more control over their lives.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister: I know that he said that there were many issues with which we might have wished to deal. Today's debate is taking place in Opposition time. I promise that, if the Government give us a full day to debate these matters, I shall be happy to deal with the question of population and other issues.
    Mr. Goodlad: I would hardly support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if he gave us a whole day to debate population.
    The services that we are providing will help to slow population growth and lead to improvements in the quality of life for families. Helping family planning and other reproductive health services is an integral element of our sustainable development strategy. The ODA aims to continue to help more women and men to choose when to have children, to improve their reproductive health. We shall focus on improving access to family planning for both women and men, making pregnancy and childbirth safer for women and improving the sexual health of men and women.
    We are playing an active part in preparations for the United Nations international conference on population and development, to be held in Cairo in September this year. Agreement among donors and developing countries on the need for urgent action has never been greater. The conference will provide a good opportunity for us to build on the current level of consensus, which is extremely important. We are working hard to ensure wide support for the Cairo action plan.

    261
    As I have said, most of our aid is long-term development assistance; but if disaster strikes—whether man-made or natural—we make a major contribution to the international emergency aid effort. The terrible conflict in Rwanda, of which the hon. Member for Monklands, West gave a moving account, is at the centre of our attention. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced a further allocation of £5.23 million in emergency aid on 2 June. A large proportion will continue to support the relief activities of non-governmental organisations. More than £11 million has now been committed bilaterally since 6 April.
    We were one of the first countries to respond with key logistical help to open up communications in northern Tanzania to the refugee camps. We are providing 5,000 tonnes of emergency food aid—a quarter of the amount specified in the world food programme appeal.
    We are monitoring the position closely. In May we sent an assessment mission to the region; it found that British emergency aid, including that of the NGOs, is being used effectively and is much appreciated. The co-ordination between the United Nations agencies, the NGOs and the Red Cross movement was impressive. A further ODA assessment mission will be sent next month.
    As the hon. Member for Monklands, West knows, the political situation is still volatile and the refugee exodus continues. External emergency aid is required for the foreseeable future. We remain ready to do more, particularly when safe access to other parts of Rwanda is possible. We have offered logistical support to the United Nations aid mission in Rwanda, but not troops.
    We continue to be at the forefront of the international community's efforts to help to relieve the suffering of those caught up in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. We have committed nearly £175 million in humanitarian aid so far. More than 100 British trucks, together with drivers and support staff, are working as part of the delivery operation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We are also assisting with vital work to restore the infrastructure—such as electricity supplies in central Bosnia—and helping to restore water and sewerage systems. We are at the forefront of the international reconstruction effort in Sarajevo.
    In 1992–93 we provided, bilaterally and multilaterally, more than £290 million in emergency assistance. I pay particular tribute to the NGOs, with which we work both in providing emergency aid and in our long-term development programmes. They show great dedication—as both the hon. Member for Monklands, West and I have seen for ourselves—great industry and, in many cases, great courage. More of our aid is being channelled through them—more than £140 million in 1992–93—in recognition of their special abilities, particularly in working with the poorest. I am sure that the whole House will join me in recognising the dedication of those NGOs and the people who work in them.
    Finally, we use aid to help developing countries to address issues such as climate change, the destruction of biodiversity and ozone depletion, helping them play their part in tackling those global challenges. The United Kingdom has contributed £130 million to the global environment facility, which helps developing countries to meet the costs which they face in doing so. That makes us the fifth largest contributor overall.
    The speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West, who is the kindest of men, was an excellent example of
    262
    what his party does best: pious sentiments combined with woolly thinking—not to mention an intellectual sleight of hand which I will come to in a moment. Predictably, he plays games with numbers, and I make no complaint about that. But he should come clean with the House. Is he prepared to pledge that Labour would reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP within the lifetime of a Parliament? Is he aware that the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), is repudiating all the spending pledges made by his fellow Front-Bench spokesmen in his bid to win the Labour party some economic respectability? Has he cleared his lines with the shadow Chancellor, or does he have his own personal supply of confetti money?
    Once again, the Labour party is trying to have it both ways, and it will be rumbled. Fine intentions are simply not enough: the last Labour Government gave a firm pledge in 1974 to meet the UN target and ended up cutting £50 million off the aid budget in 1977 and 1978.
    There is only one way to maintain a substantial aid programme, and that is to pursue policies for enterprise and sustainable growth. Until the Labour party understands how prosperity is generated, it will have to go on looking for ever more ingenious ways of dividing up a shrinking cake.
    If we are serious about helping the poorest countries, we must let the facts of economic life intrude. Nowhere is that more true than with trade, which brings developing countries three times as much revenue as aid. If we do not take their exports, we shall condemn them to continued poverty. The crucial point is that trade is not a zero-sum game. All countries benefit from increased trade. Yet the Labour party cannot get its collective brain, or its collectivist brain, around this point. The European socialist manifesto, to which Labour is committed and which the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), apparently co-authored, warns that
    "the principle of free trade must not be used to undermine social standards in Europe. We must protect our economy from unfair trading and we must try to combat social and environmental dumping".
    We could not have it clearer than that. The Labour party sees an inherent conflict between the interests of the developing countries and the interests of Europe. It is worried that the poorest countries might try to exploit their competitive advantage by exporting into our markets. It calls that dumping. We on this side of the House call it something rather different. We see trade with the developing world for what it is—a chance for developing countries to build up their own economies and to become more self-reliant. That is why we have led the drive to open up world markets. The Labour party's hostility to free trade shows that, when the chips are down, it puts the interests of the trade unions—its paymasters—over the interests of the world's poorest countries. While Labour postures, the Conservatives will leave our friends in the developing world in no doubt that only we can be relied upon to champion their interests.
    The Government have helped to transform the international debate about aid to the overwhelming advantage of the world's poorest countries. Unlike many who strike attitudes on the subject of aid, our aim has been not to salve our consciences but to take practical steps to help developing countries achieve self-reliance.

    263
    We have led the way on debt relief. We have introduced the idea of using aid as a lever for good government, sensible economic policies and human rights. We have led the fight for open and generous trade arrangements for the third world through the GATT. We have argued that aid programmes should be targeted first and foremost on the poorest countries, and we practise what we preach. With our excellent voluntary agencies, whose expertise and experience in the field is second to none—not to mention our outstanding military personnel—we have shown how emergency relief should play a key role in aid strategy. We are saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the process, as we are in Bosnia—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) thinks that that is funny. He has a warped sense of humour.
    We have helped to bring about a whole new emphasis on the quality and effectiveness of aid programmes, with the European Commission next in our sights.
    The British people are a generous and outward-looking people, with broad horizons born of our history. Under this Government, they have seen Britain recover its standing as a global power with global interests and global responsibilities. Under this Government, there can be no question of shuffling off those responsibilities or retreating into our shell. Nor will we fight shy of asking some hard and searching questions when it is in the interests of the poorest countries that we should do so.
    Those are the measures of our commitment to work with others to eliminate the poverty and misery that still affect much of the world. The British public expect nothing less. The world's poorest deserve nothing less.
    5.25 pm
    Sir David Steel: I have never heard the Minister's best friends accuse him of being a dangerous demagogue and I suppose that we must congratulate him on batting nobly for the Government this afternoon. I hope that he will not take it personally if I say that overseas aid debates have suffered in this Parliament from the fact that the Minister responsible for those matters is in another place and not here to participate in the debates; but that cannot be helped.
    I do not know whether hon. Members can be accused of tedious repetition if they repeat what they said on previous occasions. I suppose that they should be, and I shall not repeat all our criticisms of the decline in the overseas aid budget, our recognition of what the Government have done on debt, or the fact that they need to do more. I have spoken on those subjects before. In this brief contribution, I wish to support the basic plea for a White Paper on overseas development made in the Opposition motion, but to do so in the context of two issues that are rarely dealt with in these debates: first, the campaign against the arms trade and, secondly, the campaign against corruption.
    I remind the House that, last year, a young graduate, Sean Devereux, was killed in Somalia while working for UNICEF. Some time later, his father wrote to me enclosing a last letter that the young man had written to his parish church. In it, he described the chaos in Somalia. I shall quote two paragraphs from it as it serves as an introduction to my remarks this evening. He wrote:
    "Everything was turned upside down because of the greed and ego of certain men. Siad Barre, the former dictator, General Aideed, Morgan and Ali Mahadi, the so-called warlords, are the
    264
    usual names mentioned in this battle of power. But one must add to the list: the US Congress, the former Soviet Politburo, the Italian and British parliaments; apparently a noble collection of men and women, who over the years approved the production and delivery of weapons of destruction to Somalia—for its own self-interest of course. The greed starts here.
    Today in Somalia, in the southern part of Kismayo, I cannot walk from my house to my office (a distance of 400 metres) without heavily armed bodyguards. Thousands upon thousands of men in Somalia have their own weapons …they tell me this is for 'survival'. Boys of 14 live out their Rambo fantasies, believing they are fighting for freedom. They are so blind…but who can blame children. In Kismayo I wander through the market, checking the prices of looted UN food—wheat, rice, beans, etc., and I see next to the bananas and camel meatAK47s, Kalashnikovs, Barrettas, M16s, Bazookas, varying in prices from $75 up to $200—all made in the so-called 'civilised world'. Next door to my home is a shack with the sign 'SPARE PARTS'. Sadly it's not for cars but for weapons, again made in the 'civilised world'. We have a lot to answer for."
    As I have said before in the House, there is no more appalling hypocrisy in international politics today than the way that countries in the developed world compete in the sale of arms to unstable regimes, then stand around wringing their collective hands the moment that they are used.
    The United Nations Children's Fund, the organisation for which Sean Devereux worked, estimates in a recent report that throughout the late 1980s, the world's military spending was running close to $1 trillion a year, or the equivalent of the combined annual incomes of the poorest half of the world's people. Those are shattering statistics. The donor nations, including ourselves, need to re-examine collectively our military spending and our dependence on the export of military equipment and technology. I acknowledge that the United Nations register of arms sales is a start, but it needs to be upgraded into an instrument to control the trade.
    One of the places where we must begin is the European Union, because it is no good one nation unilaterally taking steps if another undermines the policy. All hon. Members —or most, at any rate—have ended up subscribing to the intentions of the Maastricht treaty to develop a common foreign policy in the European Union. If one considers the arms trade in the European Union, one realises the need for such a policy. For example, Portugal decided on a national ban of arms sales to Indonesia, but the German Government provided naval vessels to Indonesia, so the action of one European Union member state is vitiated by the action of another. The need for a common policy could not be more obvious.
    That is also true of land mines, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), the Opposition spokesman. As long ago as last December, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for a ban on the export of anti-personnel mines. If the Government will not listen —as, apparently, they do not—to the Opposition or myself, they might take note of the trenchant article written by that wise old bird, Lord Deedes, in The Daily Telegraph as a result of his experiences in Angola, where he saw the effect of land mines. That is another issue on which the European Union could give a lead.
    On the wider issue of the effect of arms sales on the developing world, the United Nations Development Programme has just published a substantial and valuable report showing clearly how reductions in weapon expenditure in the developing world could give major help with human resource development. It has argued in that

    265
    report that it is doubtful whether the spending by the developing world brought increased security to the average citizen. It says:
    "In developing countries, the chances of dying front social neglect (from malnutrition and preventable diseases) are 33 times greater than the chances of dying in a war from external aggression. Yet, on average, there are about 20 soldiers for every physician"
    in the developing world.
    "If anything, the soldiers are more likely to reduce personal security than to increase it."
    We know of plenty of evidence of that. It also says:
    "Developing countries have fought few international wars, and many have used their armed forces to repress their"
    own
    "people. Arms spending undermines human security in another way—by eating up precious resources that could have been used for human development."
    It is a great pity that we do not allow visual aids in the Chamber because that report publishes a graph, which I can only attempt to describe to the House. It shows, on the left hand side, a column of the military spending in the developing world, and points out that a 12 per cent. cut in such spending could have the following effect on the health of the people in the third world. It could make available the additional funds to provide primary health care for all, including immunisation of all children, elimination of severe malnutrition, the halving of moderate malnutrition and the provision of safe drinking water for all.
    A further 4 per cent. cut in military spending in the developing world could produce the resources to reduce adult illiteracy by half, providing universal primary education and educating women to the same level as men. A further 8 per cent. cut, making a total of a 24 per cent. cut in military spending, would provide the additional cost of a basic family planning package to all willing couples and—this takes up the Minister's point—stabilise the world population by the year 2015. In other words, the gains to be had by giving greater political priority to the control of the arms trade are colossal. I believe that we should pay far more attention to that subject.
    Secondly, but more briefly, I shall mention the fight against corruption. Although I am not suggesting that our overseas aid has to a large extent been misused in the developing world, it is a common perception that that might be so. There are undeniably too many examples of the misuse of power for private profit and large-scale corruption in some countries, involving the holders of public office and corporations. That tendency is on the increase.
    The victims of that corruption are the poorest people —those who suffer most—because public resources are wasted instead of being used to meet their basic needs. The social fabric of their societies is undermined, accountable government is subverted and market competition itself is distorted. Obviously, grand corruption exists everywhere on the globe. It is shocking enough when we come across it in the north, but countries in the south and the east simply cannot afford it.
    That is why I hope that the Government will give full support to a new organisation, which was established last year, called Transparency International. It is a non profit-making organisation registered in Germany. The support for that initiative has come from leaders in developing and industrial countries, from nongovernmental institutions, from some multinational corporations and from foreign assistance agencies. It is a timely initiative, because in my opinion the fight against
    266
    corruption is intimately linked with the promotion of democracy, good governance and accountability, which are the phrases used by our Foreign Office.
    I am indebted to the publication "Africa Analysis" for some recent examples of individual corruption by rulers which has deprived countries of the resources that they should have had. Perhaps the most spectacular example today in sub-Saharan Africa is President Mobutu of Zaire. According to "Africa Analysis", it is estimated that his personal fortune is now about $5 billion. There is even some criticism of President Moi of Kenya, an ally of this country, and it is estimated that his personal wealth is now about £3 billion. President Banda of Malawi, who has just been voted out of office, is estimated to have acquired a personal fortune of about £2 billion—a third of the country's gross domestic product. When one looks back over the history of the period since the independence of African countries, one realises that it is, unhappily, the case that, during the cold war, we in the western developed nations were not too fussy about who we were supporting as long as they were perceived to be on the right side of the global ideological argument.
    The cold war is over. It is now right to draw attention to those two subjects. What is needed to tackle the arms trade and corruption is not injections of money—the Government are always being urged to provide more money for this, that and the other, including overseas development—but far greater political will on behalf of the Government and allied Governments in the west. I hope that in reply I shall receive some assurance that there will be a greater recognition that those two subjects deserve closer attention.
    5.38 pm
    Sir John Stanley: The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State had batted nobly in the Government's cause. I think that he batted very effectively in setting out what the Government have done throughout their interrelated policy in relation to overseas aid. Perhaps understandably, he moved somewhat lightly over the huge scale of the challenges that remain to be dealt with in that key policy area. I shall spend a few moments discussing what I regard as three of the key challenges in policy terms that still confront the Government.
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) mentioned the fact that the balance of our overseas aid expenditure has shifted significantly. At the end of the period of the last Labour Government, the bilateral programme took 75 per cent. of our total overseas aid expenditure; the multilateral contribution, obviously, represented the other 25 per cent. This financial year marks an historic watershed. It would seem that 1994–95 will be the last year in which the bilateral element of our programme will take just over 50 per cent. of total aid expenditure. Figures from the ODA show that the crossover point will be reached next year. In 1995–96, the multilateral programme will take 50.4 per cent. of total expenditure; in 1996–97 that will rise to 52.8 per cent.—and it is likely to rise again significantly thereafter.
    Perhaps I was not alone in the House in being unaware of the profound significance of the agreements reached at the Edinburgh Council of Ministers in 1992, and of the impact of those agreements on the control exercised by this

    267
    House and this country over our aid programme. We face a huge increase in our multilateral contribution via the European Union. ODA figures show that expenditure on the EU element of the programme—I combine our contributions to the EU budget and, quite reasonably, to the European development fund—will take up this year just over half a billion pounds of our total overseas aid expenditure. In just two years' time, in 1996–97, that will have risen to three quarters of a billion pounds, and the figure is set to rise still further.
    Figures published only last month in the Journal of the European Communities give us the data for the five financial years from 1992–93 to 1996–97. In that period, the British contribution to the EU's aid programme rises at an annual average compound growth rate of 25 per cent. That represents a huge cuckoo in the nest of our total overseas aid programme. As we know, the overall programme is fairly static in cash terms, and hence likely to be declining in real terms. That means that we face a considerable reduction in the overall cash amounts available for the bilateral programme. As the Minister rightly said when opening the debate, the bilateral programme is extremely well conducted; it is performed to very high standards.
    I regret the relative ease with which we made concessions at the Edinburgh summit of 1992, the more so now that their full impact is becoming apparent. Nevertheless, the decisions have been made: they are water under the bridge now. They are legally binding, and they are not capable of review until 1999. We therefore have to live with them. Still, for all Members of this House who are interested in overseas aid, the new situation poses a challenge—how will Members be informed about those programmes in future, and what degree of accountability will be obtained for what will represent a major slice of our overseas aid programme?
    The Government must examine various ways of ensuring accountability to this House for the large sums of overseas aid that are now going to the EU—sums which, as I have said, are due to rise to three quarters of a billion in two years' time. It will not be enough if the Government merely pay the cheques and offer us a few bland paragraphs in annual departmental reports, and then leave it at that. The House will want information, under four heads, on how this expenditure is being used.
    First, we shall want to know how the money has been spent—to which countries it has gone and on what sort of projects it has been spent. Secondly, the House will want to know how much of the money that has gone across the channel to Brussels has been swallowed up in expenses and administration instead of getting out to the communities for which it was destined. Thirdly, we shall want a proper evaluation of the quality of the programmes—how well or how badly they have been run, for instance. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale referred to corruption, and we shall want to know how much of this —British taxpayers'—money has not found its way into the right hands. How much of it has been lost on the way owing to corrupt practices?
    Fourthly, the House will want to know how much of the three quarters of a billion pounds going across the channel to Brussels will come back in the form of EU contributions to British non-governmental organisations and will be used in their invaluable work. An altogether fuller analysis will
    268
    be required if we are to achieve any sort of accountability to the House for the largest single component of our overseas aid programme—that which goes to the European Union.
    The second huge challenge that we face is in emergency relief. The Government have made significant progress during their period of office. When the Foreign Office set up its emergencies unit, it took an important step forward in that respect. Through the 1980s and into the 1990s, there has been better co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence and the FCO, and that fact has been reflected in our response to a whole series of emergencies—the Ethiopian famine of 1984–85, the Mexican earthquake, the Colombian volcanic eruption and the serious floods in Bangladesh, not to mention last year's flooding in Nepal. There is no doubt that we can make effective, well-targeted and usually timely responses to smaller scale emergencies.
    There is, however, a great need to see what more can be done to improve responses to major international disasters. Somalia and Rwanda have exposed the appalling lack of international co-ordination and will that need to be applied to these major emergencies, which are clearly beyond the capabilities of any single country. I am sure that the Government are by no means satisfied with the response made so far by the international community to the emergencies in Somalia and Rwanda.
    In this day and age it is not acceptable that hundreds of thousands of people should lose their lives by starvation in Somalia, or that hundreds of thousands should lose their lives because of appalling tribalism in places such as Rwanda—with the international community apparently paralysed and unable to intervene while small numbers of lightly armed insurgents and militias, outright murderers and bandits, perpetrate their violence. Surely they should not be allowed to hold the international community to ransom.
    The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale referred to a common foreign policy. I should also like to speak about that. The European Union's resources include aid and military resources, and its expertise will be increased by the Scandinavians. Surely, under the common foreign policy to which we are committed, we should be able to put together in the EU a basis by which the EU itself could mobilise sufficient resources to deal more effectively with situations such as those which have arisen in Somalia and Rwanda and produce effective action on the ground much more quickly. Within the Council of Ministers and the EU, we should make contingency arrangements for a European Union rapid response to deal with major crises which clearly require international action because they are beyond the capabilities of one country.
    Finally, some hon. Members have spoken about the targeting of aid to the poorest people. There was an extraordinarily vast lacuna between the statistics offered by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)—I fear that my Welsh pronunciation may not be quite right —and those offered by the Minister. The hon. Lady, who has now left her place, mentioned 6 per cent. but my right hon. Friend the Minister spoke about some 80 per cent. I do not know how those percentages can be reconciled and I may wish to probe the matter through parliamentary questions.
    My key point is that, although British aid flows to countries that have relatively low per capita incomes, it may not reach the really poor communities within those

    269
    countries. Most hon. Members have visited such countries and will be familiar with that phenomenon. A major challenge to the Government is to ensure that British aid continues to reach poor communities. The debate should be in community terms and not in country terms and measured by per capita GNP.
    That is a major challenge because much of the aid will be spent multilaterally and we no longer have control over how the money is spent. A significant chunk of the bilateral element of the aid programme goes to eastern Europe and to the former Soviet Union through the know-how funds. The problems in those areas are mostly of a lesser order than they are in the poorest parts of third-world countries. Within the bilateral provision, there is the aid and trade provision whose purpose is avowedly to try to assist the export of British goods and materials. Therefore, there is major financial pressure on the Government to keep their aid programme focused on the poorest.
    The policy issue facing the Government is that they need to recognise more fully than they have so far that if they want to get real help such as basic health care and education, water supplies and improved agricultural production into the hands of poor communities, the only way to do it is by and large through non-governmental organisations, and especially through British nongovernmental organisations. British NGOs go to the poorest areas not just to visit but to stay for years until they have produced a sustainable uplift in conditions in those areas.
    In looking further at how to improve the impact of their aid programme on the poorest communities, I hope that the Government will look particularly at the joint funding scheme. They have increased somewhat the contribution to that scheme, which is the vehicle by which British NGOs can be brought in and by which British public expenditure through money privately subscribed to charities, which British people do with considerable generosity, can be harnessed. That will ensure that the money goes to poor communities in poor countries. I hope that, against the overall backcloth that I have described, the Government will take a radical look at the joint funding programme and significantly increase our contribution.
    The three key challenges are: accountability to the House for our huge contribution to the EU, the mobilizing within the EU of effective international means of responding to major emergencies such as that in Rwanda and trying to find fresh ways of ensuring that our residual bilateral programme is even better concentrated on the poorest people.
    5.54 pm
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Both the Minister and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) spoke about aid being given to former states of the USSR. What information does the Minister have about assistance given by the European Union to the three countries that are suffering most severely from the policing of sanctions against the former Yugoslavia? I refer to Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
    The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I wish to focus on the relationship between trade and human rights and, more especially, on relations between the United Kingdom and China and the violation of human rights in Tibet. I think that I am accurate in saying that in terms of
    270
    trade between the United Kingdom and China, the UK has shifted from a crude surplus of some £209 million in 1986 to a deficit this year which may exceed £500 million.
    Many Chinese goods exported to the west are produced by Laogai labour, which is slave labour. A report which has come into my hands states:
    "Day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year, tens of thousands of ordinary people in China pick cotton, sew clothing, tan hides, harvest tea, cut shoe leather, assemble chain hoists, mix chemicals, mine coal, manufacture sophisticated machinery or perform one of hundreds of other jobs.
    These 'workers' lives are no longer ordinary. The life of a slave labourer is not ordinary in any sense of the word, except to their guards and the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party who steadfastly refuse to dismantle the Laogai."
    The west must deal firmly with the aging leaders of China, but at present there is a conspicuous lack of toughness among our leaders. As chairman of the all-party group on Tibet, at the end of April I wrote to President Clinton urging him to stand firm on the relationship between trade and the maintenance of human rights. In a letter that I received just yesterday, President Clinton sought to justify his decision to sever the link between trade—that is, most favoured nation status—and human rights criteria. The President stated:
    "As you will have noted from my decision of May 27 on Most-Favored-Nation trade status for China, our evaluation of the situation with respect to Tibet was the same as yours, that no significant progress has been made by the Chinese government this past year."
    Regretfully, the President's letter goes on to state:
    "As you know, I nonetheless decided to end the linkage between MFN and specific human rights criteria. To he sure, I believe that my Executive Order on China played a useful purpose in engaging the Chinese on a range of human rights issues and in producing limited progress in a number of areas, including freedom of emigration and exports of goods produced by prison labor. At the same time, I believe that our future efforts on human rights in China can best take place outside the context of the annual MFN debate."
    In his letter, the President acknowledged that there has been little or no movement on China's part to improve human rights in China and Tibet. It also appears that, by his decision, President Clinton is seeking to separate on a permanent basis the relationship between the issues of human rights and trade with China. He said in his letter:
    "I have ended the linkage between the two".
    In other words, he has removed one of the most powerful sanctions he can employ in his negotiations with the old men in Peking on the important issue of human rights. However, while he and other western leaders would dearly wish the issues of human rights in Tibet and China and the autonomy of the Tibetan people to be put to one side, others continue to press for reform.
    Among those significant others I am pleased to say are the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. and I shall quote from paragraph 28 on pages 91 and 92 of their fine report. I am not a member of the Committee, but I was pleased to read such a fine report. Paragraph 28 states:
    "We recommend that the UK Government pursues its dialogue with the PRC on the matter of particular human rights abuses in Tibet and opens a discussion on the subject of Tibet's right to self-determination. We conclude that a satisfactory conclusion to the former concern may only be achieved by progress on the latter. Furthermore we conclude that China's attitude to Tibet may contain a warning for the future of Hong Kong. The world will not allow the issue of Tibet to be ignored".
    The members of that Select Committee are offering a warning, and indeed some advice, to the people who rule

    271
    China. We cannot allow the United Nations and the European Union to ignore the tragic plight of the indigenous people of Tibet.
    The admirable Select Committee report has stunned the Chinese Government and angered the old men in Peking, who have accused the Committee of gross interference in China's internal affairs for including recommendations relating to Tibet. They offered similar sharp criticism in response to a report produced by a human rights committee in the Australian Federal Parliament which, following a visit to China and Tibet, was as critical of the regime in Peking as our Foreign Affairs Committee was. Those Australian Members of Parliament were denied a return visit to China because of their firmly worded critical report on the violation of human rights in China and Tibet.
    Despite the massive trade balance in favour of China, fears of retaliation against United States business exports to China led to the granting of most favoured nation status by President Clinton in direct contradiction with many of his speeches during the election campaign. Once again, we have a example of the President changing course quite dramatically. However, there has to be a maintenance of focus on the relationship between trade and human rights violations.
    The Dalai Lama recently voiced his deep despair over the failure—I would say the honourable failure—of his non-violent and realistic approach to the Chinese Government concerning negotiations over the autonomy of his people. Others argue for a violent course of action, but the Dalai Lama has always argued a non-violent approach to the Chinese Government, which is wholly admirable as well as right and proper. The policy of absorbing Tibet into China continues apace through economic means, through the subjugation of the indigenous people of Tibet and through a continuing settlement programme of Chinese workers and their families into the very heart of Tibet.
    With other members of the all-party committee on Tibet, I shall be meeting the Minister on Monday afternoon to discuss these matters, but it seems to me that parliamentarians in the west should be demanding that the United Nations, the European Union and the rich countries of the west should use their power in relation to negotiations with the Chinese Government to wrest significant concessions from that Administration in relation to the understandable, natural and justifiable demand of the Tibetan people to enjoy their own way of life in terms of their culture and religion.

    The Dalai Lama is not demanding independence but, along with the Government in exile in northern India, he is arguing that the Chinese must pay respect to the needs and interests of the Tibetan people in terms of their culture, their religion and their way of life. We should be saying, "Yes, that is absolutely right: you have a right to such autonomy in your own land."
    For many people in the west, they are forgotten people, but some of us throughout the western world seek to bring their plight to the attention of Ministers, who are sympathetic—there is no doubt about that—but who are not doing enough for the ordinary people of China and are failing dismally to protect and defend the interests of the long-forgotten people of Tibet.
    6.6 pm
    Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: In rising to speak in this important debate, I must first pay a warm tribute and commend to the House the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister. It was a thoughtful, caring and detailed speech, full of facts and policy initiatives.
    I also listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) who is unfortunately no longer in the Chamber. He used the words, "Fighting poverty" 10 times. He said that we should fight poverty on the beaches, on the hills, in the vales, and so on, but not once did he use the words, "Creating wealth". We cannot fight poverty without creating wealth in poor countries. Unless and until the Opposition recognise that the only way to eradicate poverty in developing countries is to give them the instruments, the methods and the techniques for creating wealth, speeches about running around the world fighting poverty will remain empty rhetoric.
    Far from being ashamed of our aid policies, we should be very proud of them. I was born in a developing country and I have seen the effectiveness and efficacy with which British aid was used in Sri Lanka. Today there are 700,000 farmers who create food and provide employment because of what the British aid programme provided for that country. Some time ago, Sri Lanka was a net importer of food, but through the Maha valley scheme, today that country is a net exporter of food.
    Labour Members have made a number of points about Rwanda. I remind them that Britain was the first country to go into Rwanda when the problems arose. So far, we have spent more than £11 million in emergency relief to alleviate the enormous suffering in that country and the damage caused by the civil war.
    We have heard today about how well our aid programme is targeted. Over the past four years the budget has increased by 10 per cent. The Government's commitment to helping the poorest countries is what our aid programme is all about. We have written off £1 billion of debt under the Trinidad terms. Some poor developing countries—or non-developing countries—were spending 80 to 90 per cent. of their export earnings on servicing their debts. That has been helped by the writing off of £1 billion.
    The essence of our aid programme is poverty reduction, health reforms, water supplies and humanitarian aid. Underlying that is a principle that the Labour party probably recognises—Sir John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice", which is to help those who are least advantaged in society to improve themselves. Through aid, we must give them the weapons, tools and opportunities to create a better standard of living for themselves. Otherwise, it is simply an open-ended system under which we provide support, temporary relief, rehabilitation, and so on, but at the end of the day those countries are no better off than when the process started.
    Above all else in our aid programme, we can be most proud of the "good governance" criteria that we have employed over the years in the provision of aid. The criteria are sound economic policies, open and accountable government, free and fair elections, efficient public administration and respect for human rights. After all, it is from this place that the rule of law, democracy and constitutional government have spread. Today, especially in the Commonwealth, 1.8 billion people understand and

    273
    recognise—even if some do not put them into practice—the values and inherent ideas that have come from this institution.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) made some salient points about the European Community. Our aid programme is being pressured—if that is the right word—so that currently we are putting about 23 per cent. of it into the EC multilateral budget. Unfortunately, we have committed ourselves to increasing that to 33 per cent. by 1999. We must study what is happening in the EC. Rather than acting as a 13th donor country, it should play a more strategic role. It should not become fatter by drawing funds from other donor countries; it should have a strategic, monitoring role in which it could harness the support of the 12 member nations and deal more rapidly with problems as they arise. There will be continuing conflict if the EC acts as the 13th donor entity, growing ever fatter on funds from the 12 member countries. We have succeeded in preventing the EC from drawing more funds into its coffers and in encouraging the EC Commissioner to spend the underspent money more effectively and to set up long-term procedures for disaster relief and rehabilitation aid.
    There are more than 18 civil wars taking place in Africa. When they are ended, which I hope will be soon, a massive programme of rehabilitation aid will be required. Currently, the EC is underspending what it has in its coffers. People far better qualified than I have conducted research into that. For instance, the European Court of Auditors found that the Commission did not delegate enough power to staff working on aid provision programmes. Highly paid EC staff were brought in to do mundane jobs in recipient countries.
    The United Kingdom has built up, over many years, a vast network through our embassies, high commissions and non-governmental organisations, so we do not have the problem of highly paid staff from London doing mundane jobs in recipient countries. We have a network of people already in place to implement aid programmes effectively. The Court of Auditors' report found that the Community's efforts had so far lacked realism in setting its targets. It also found that 60 per cent. of the projects funded by the EC were over-ambitious or had failed to take local constraints sufficiently into account in their preparation.
    The Court of Auditors found that in its projects the EC was prepared to act hastily and without undertaking feasibility studies before creating the restructuring and production programmes to bring people back on stream. As a result, projects had to be considerably modified after only a few months, following further consultation. The Commission seems to engender an ad hoc, learn-as-you-go process. It seems to be on a learning curve. Others who have done the job far better for years should be consulted, or at least left alone to get on with what they are doing while the Commission adopts a different strategy.
    I wish to make one recommendation to my right hon. Friend the Minister on our aid and trade provision. Our current practice is to provide finance for development projects proposed by British companies. However, if one of the prioritised projects does not come to fruition, we underspend our ATP budget. Last year it was underspent by 25 per cent. My recommendation is that we have a list of priority projects and if, for whatever reason, project No. I fails, project No. 2 can immediately call on the ATP funds allocated for that year, rather than having to go through the whole process again.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.
    6.17 pm
    Mr. Mike Gapes: I want briefly to follow the points about the aid and trade provision. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee is to produce a detailed report on that in the next few weeks. I am sure that its recommendations will be widely welcomed.
    I want to comment specifically on what was said by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), who drew attention to the serious issue of the reduction in the proportion of the total overseas development assistance budget going to bilateral aid and the increase in the proportion going to multilateral aid. My figures show that the bilateral proportion will drop from 58.3 per cent. in 1988–89 to only 47.2 per cent. in 1996–97, while the multilateral proportion will increase from 41.7 per cent. to 52.8 per cent.
    In the context of a declining or static overseas aid budget, which has been the case under the Conservative Government over the past 15 years, if the multilateral proportion is increased through organisations such as the European Union or the World bank, but there is no increase in the total budget, this Parliament and Government will have less control over what is spent. That leaves aside the question whether money spent through the EU is the best way to dispense resources. The real answer is to increase the aid budget, and then the proportion going to bilateral would not reduce in the way that it has, or is planned to be, in the next few years.
    Figures from UNICEF show that a serious gap has opened between the few countries which are generous aid givers—such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark, which all spend more than 1 per cent. of their gross domestic product on overseas aid—and countries which spend significantly less. Only four countries—the three that I named and the Netherlands—exceed the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP set many years ago. They are followed by France at 0.61 per cent., Finland at 0.55 per cent., Switzerland at 0.46 per cent., Canada at 0.44 per cent., Portugal at 0.41 per cent., Belgium at 0.40 per cent., Germany at 0.38 per cent., Italy at 0.35 per cent., and Australia and Japan at 0.32 per cent. Way down the list, at 15th place, is the United Kingdom.
    Under a Labour Government in 1979, the UK spent 0.51 per cent. of GNP on overseas aid, but the Thatcher Government drastically cut that figure, and the Major Government have lowered it further. We have already heard it said that the figure will not change significantly over the next few years. It currently stands at 0.28 per cent. of GNP.
    Mr. Deva: Is it not true that the last Labour Government cut the aid budget by £50 million a year for three years, which is the equivalent of £100 million today?
    Mr. Gapes: The last Labour Government committed themselves, as did the present Government, to moving towards the UN target, but the present Conservative Government are consistently moving away from that target, year on year. The commitment by Ministers to the UN target is probably not worth the paper that it is written on.
    As to the wider aspects of development, much has been said about the need for good government and for policies

    275
    that assist countries to deal with conflicts. Nations suffering from internal dissension are often those where living standards are lowest and where the problems for tens or hundreds of millions of people are the most serious. It is therefore essential to give the maximum support to the UN and to its various agencies.
    They include an organisation from which the Government have, disgracefully, withdrawn British participation and refused to rejoin. I refer to UNESCO. Last year, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee said that the Government should take the UK back into UNESCO. The cost of £12 million is given as the reason for refusing to rejoin UNESCO, but the Pergau dam cost £234 million. I suggest that rejoining UNESCO would be high on most people's list of priorities.
    I conclude on one other aspect of peacekeeping—the assistance we give in the form of humanitarian aid in areas of conflict. Clearly, it is not possible for the UK or for European Union member states collectively to act as the world's policeman. Neither is it possible for the UK alone to play a significant role in every internal conflict in every region.
    However, it does not help when the American Congress adopts crass and stupid positions. It is not prepared to send in American troops to assist a peace settlement in Bosnia, but it votes to lift an arms embargo so that American weapons could be used to kill British troops operating humanitarian convoys. If the American Congress persists, the time will be near when, for the safety of our own troops, we shall have to take steps to withdraw our forces from Bosnia.
    If we do not, outside pressures—together with an unresolved military conflict between the three parties to that civil war—will mean that our troops will be like meat in a sandwich. I say that as someone who is committed to the UN and to international action, supports NATO and is regarded as an Atlanticist. The American Congress—the Senate and the House of Representatives—having effectively encouraged one side not to enter a peace settlement, is now taking decisions that could lead to further loss of life and serious conflict in the future.
    It was important for the Opposition to seek a full debate on this issue today. I hope that there will be further opportunities in normal time—whatever that might become—to discuss these serious matters. Given the millions of people who are dying from malnutrition and the tens of millions of refugees worldwide, it is regrettable that this country should become so obsessed with trivia that it does not give proper attention to such issues.
    6.26 pm
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye. I confess that I did not expect to be called quite so early, but I am delighted. I note that a number of Opposition Members have gone about their other business. I am sure that they will return, but, in view of the 10-minute rule, if you find that we are short of speakers later, perhaps you will allow us a second go.
    It is clear that right hon. and hon. Members who seek to catch the eye of the Chair today have taken a particular interest in overseas development and aid to less developed nations for some time—in some instances, before they
    276
    entered the House. There is evidently considerable expertise among right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken or who have yet to speak.
    Although I appreciate that the Opposition are here to oppose, some of the wording of Labour's motion is unfortunate, if not deliberately disingenuous. It criticises the Government for
    "the failure to target aid on those in greatest need …the absence of any clear, coordinated strategy for promoting effective and sustainable development".
    Earlier, hon. Members spoke of targeting aid to benefit the poorest people in developing countries. One important aspect of the British overseas aid programme is its quality rather than quantity. Targeting and quality are absolutely vital.
    So far, except by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, sufficient gratitude has not been expressed for the enormous efforts of those who work for non-governmental organisations and the Overseas Development Administration. They do splendid work, often in very difficult circumstances, and Britain is rightly proud of them.
    In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) drew attention to some of the difficulties of moving towards the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. Although the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) may refer to this later, I did not hear a clear statement of where the Opposition intend to find the money to move from the present percentage of GNP to the target of 0.7 per cent.
    We all recognise the importance of moving gradually towards that target. Because of the situation in the United Kingdom, I would be the first to accept that it is regrettable, in view of the real increases over the past four years, that there is to be a small reduction in the percentage over the next couple of years. As we look towards the next decade, it is vital that we build towards the target figure of 0.7 per cent.
    Although I am sure that the hon. Member for Monklands, West did not mean to be too unfair, as he is generally very even-handed, he did not adequately describe the enormous success of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in negotiating the Trinidad terms. We should not belittle a drop of £1 billion in the indebtedness of some of the poorest nations in the world.
    So far, 22 nations have benefited from the renegotiation of the Trinidad terms. I take issue with a point made earlier in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). It is not simply a question of writing off the debt of lesser developed nations: as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, we must consider the way in which the economies of lesser developed countries are run. In the short time available to me this evening, I want to consider that issue.
    First, I want to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). I agree that we should take great care when protecting our aid workers. I have always believed that, if they cannot operate satisfactorily, we should consider withdrawing them from work, wherever they are. Bosnia is just one example.
    I am particularly concerned by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Monklands, West that we are not doing enough in troubled areas. The implication was that we should send in more British troops to sort the problem out. Long before I became a Member of this House, I recall attending a dinner at the home of Derek Partridge, the then

    277
    long-serving British high commissioner in Freetown in Sierra Leone. He had done sterling work with his colleagues, and was about to leave his post.
    The then longest serving Foreign Minister of Sierra Leone was also at the dinner. As a small group of us discussed the incursion of Charles Taylor's men from Liberia into Sierra Leone—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and to Baroness Chalker for ensuring that appropriate assistance is being given to help displaced persons in Sierra Leone—the Foreign Minister tackled the high commissioner and said, "We need your military assistance to tackle the incursion."
    As the House knows, because of the war many hundreds of miles from Freetown, there was a coup, and that Government in Sierra Leone fell. One of the poorest countries, and one of the most difficult countries from the point of view of providing aid, is struggling with leaders much younger than I am. When they marched to complain to their leaders in Freetown, they suddenly found that, by default, they were running a country when they had been used to running a platoon of soldiers.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) is detained on other business, and will return to the House shortly to contribute to the debate. In London last year, he and I met a senior journalist on one of the local newspapers in Freetown. The gentleman concerned, who was in his 60s, was advising the young men of 25 and 26 on how they should be running the country.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of State drew attention to the importance of British aid not just helping with health care programmes or providing tangible support for irrigation projects, but helping through the know-how fund to deal with some of the difficulties to which I have referred.
    I conclude by paying tribute, as I did earlier, to the work of the ODA. Although we should be moving, sooner rather than later, towards the 0.7 per cent. target, there is already a £2.2 billion fund in the ODA budget. I believe that that fund is being used extremely effectively, and I very much hope that we will, in the not too distant future, be able to see a real increase, as we have over the past four years.
    6.36 pm
    Mr. John Denham: The Opposition motion draws attention to
    "the absence of any clear, co-ordinated strategy for promoting effective and sustainable development".
    I was struck by June's UNICEF briefing which, under the heading "Aid is not enough", states:
    "The industrialised nations will also have to create an 'enabling' rather than a 'disabling' economic environment within which the developing world can achieve economic growth. In practice, this will mean agreements on fair and stable commodity prices, agreements on more open access to markets for the manufactured exports from poor countries"
    and
    "agreements to write down a significant proportion of debt".
    I want to address the question whether there is any sign that the industrialised countries, including our own, are creating that enabling environment for the poorest developing countries. I believe that there is little evidence that they are.
    Before I was elected to the House, I was a lobbyist for several development and environment non-governmental organisations. Just prior to the 1992 general election, I spent some time lobbying for the interests of the poorest
    278
    people in the poorest countries in the GATT negotiations. I was often told by, among others, senior officials at the GATT secretariat and senior negotiators from the European Commission that Africa had nothing to do with GATT or the Uruguay round.
    I do not think that those people were expressing pejorative judgments on Africa or the African people. That view was simply the reflection of a reality in their eyes, that African countries, which buy little and sell less on world markets, were not to be players in negotiations that were to govern world trade. That was a club essentially for the rich nations, and for the wealthier sections of some of the middle-income countries. The trading rules that were going to be shaped in the Uruguay round were going to be shaped in those interests, not in the interests of the poorest countries.
    That highlights a contradiction at the heart of the economic policies that have been pressed on poor countries in recent years through the structural adjustment programmes promoted by the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. At their heart, they assume that the route to development for the poorest countries is through the effective participation of those countries in the global markets governed by the new trading arrangements. However, the conditions for that have not been created and the rules of the game have not been shaped in the interests of the poorest countries.
    In the promotion of those structural adjustment policies and with the aim of enabling—that is the theory—the poorest countries to participate effectively in the global market, a number of measures have been taken. The poorest developing countries have been required to make proportionally much larger tariff cuts on their imports than the European Community and, indeed, industrialised nations generally would consider. Those countries have been forced to dismantle protectionist agricultural policies which were far smaller in scale and impact than the protectionist common agricultural policy, or United States agricultural policies.
    Indeed, those countries, having dismantled their own agricultural policies at the behest of the bank and the fund, will continue to face subsidised export dumping from the European Community and from the United States of America. Their exports will continue to face escalating tariff barriers, and the greater the value added they attempt to give their goods, the greater their barrier to exporting to our markets.
    It was mentioned that GATT has reduced the relative value of the Lomé agreement to many of the poorest developing countries. In response to my intervention, the Minister said that compensation for the Lomé countries would be addressed in the future round of negotiations. That is very significant, because the Uruguay round went on for seven years, and, according to the original agreement, it was supposed not to be completed without a full assessment of its impact on the poorest developing countries. However, to all intents and purposes, that deal is complete, and only now are people beginning to address, without commitment, the impact of that agreement on the countries which will lose.
    Although many developing countries have signed up to GATT and will join the multilateral trading organisation, the decision-making lay largely in the quad group of major countries, and, to a lesser extent the only place where

    279
    developing countries had a voice was in groups such as the Cairns group, which was dominated by the middle-income agricultural producers.
    The external polices that are being pressed on the poorest countries, coupled with those of debt, have already made it inherently difficult for those countries to participate successfully in global markets. That has been made worse by the internal impact of the structural adjustment policies which the bank and the fund have promoted. Almost by definition, the poorest developing countries lack the developed productive capacity, both physical and human, to produce, sell and trade effectively in global markets.
    Structural adjustment policies have simply failed to develop the human resources and ensure the capital investment to enable those countries to play the role set out for them within the global market. All too often, those countries have found that they have been competing over a limited range of basic commodities whose prices have fallen as a result.
    Often, despite the emphasis on paper on developing the human capacity of the poorest countries, the immediate impact of structural adjustment policies has been to reduce expenditure on education, health and the skills and abilities of the poorest people. Indeed, although to some extent structural adjustment policies have been linked with political changes—they have promoted privatisation, reduced the role of the state, and reduced state spending —in most countries the main immediate effect of structural adjustment policies has been to widen the gap between the rich, who do exist in poor countries, and the poor in poor countries.
    However, from the successful experience of other developing countries such as those in south-east Asia, we know that the fundamental principles that enabled them to expand were, first, that there was a very narrow differential of incomes between the rich and the poor; secondly, that there was equitable access to resources such as land and an equitable distribution of land; and, thirdly, that the state in those economies played an important role in organising economic activity and promoting the development of those countries.
    Although there have been lessons about how very poor countries can become successful players in the international economy, those lessons have not been learnt, encouraged or applied, particularly in the countries of Africa. Far too little has been done, beyond the rhetoric, to enable the empowerment of poor people within developing countries. Indeed, the real political effect of structural adjustment policies has been to take the capacity for autonomous decision-making from the poor and the existing governmental structures of developing countries and place it in the hands of what effectively is an international bureaucracy promoted by the bank and the fund.
    The Government's policies are going wrong in a sector that has not been mentioned today. It is a matter not just of the level and quality of our aid programme but the fact that our aid programme, however good it is, is swimming against the tide of the type of economic development which is being encouraged among developing countries.
    They are being set an impossible task—to move from their current poverty and lack of well-developed, productive technologies and well-developed and diverse
    280
    economies—they do not have such things—and are being asked to compete successfully in global markets without even the levels of protection and support that, even now, we in this country and the European Union take for granted.
    That challenge to those countries is doomed to failure. If we want our development assistance to be effective, we must review the policies that we are promoting in respect of developing countries, not to lock them out of the global market but to enable them to participate in it effectively.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly dwelt on population policy. When I listened to his account of the glittering careers of his fellow founder members of the all-party group on population development, I could not help thinking that there might yet be some hope for me as its current chairman.
    There have been significant developments in population policy over the past two years. The most obvious, of course, is the change of United States policy with the new Administration. The second was the monumental decision by the G7 summit to address the issue of population and to invite the United Nations international conference on population and development in Cairo, which is due to take place in September, to address the issue and to come up with proposals for the world to consider.
    We know the serious statistics on population growth. The world's population has doubled since the war, and it is expected to double again over the next 42 years. But the most frightening aspect of all is that 95 per cent. of that growth is in the world's poorest regions, which, as hon. Members have pointed out, are affected by crime, disease, tribalism and scarcity.
    Those countries want to do something about that. They realise that population growth is the root cause of their problems, and that they must have population policies, but they also face severe problems in the implementation of those policies. As a result, there is an unmet demand for contraception by 350 million couples, and there are undoubtedly hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people who are unaware of available contraception facilities.
    The United Nations conference in Cairo in September is the best last chance to do something, for two very good reasons. The first is that the climate in the underdeveloped world is now of preparation to accept and face up to the issue. There is awareness that family planning is the best aid investment going. A classic example is Indonesia. It is now considered that 64 developing countries have explicit demographic policies, compared with 31 in 1975 and a mere 15 in 1965.
    The second reason why this might be a critical moment is that the climate is as good as it is ever going to be in the developed world to introduce a global family planning programme. I have always felt that the two most influential people in that issue are the President of the United States and the Pope.
    As we know, the United States has changed its policy. The 1984 Mexico conference resulted in a reduction of funding for the United Nations population fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The cause was the controversy over abortion and the unwillingness of the United States to fund those organisations. I am pleased to say that the Clinton Administration has overruled that.

    281
    Frankly, I would like to have been a fly on the wall during President Clinton's meeting with the Pope the other day when he drew the Pope's attention to the fact that his policy on abortion is that it should be safe, legal and rare. He also said that he did not support abortion as a means of birth control—neither do I—for the simple reason that it is a very inefficient method.
    Sadly, the Pope has not changed his mind. If anything, he has become more entrenched recently. I have huge respect for the Pope and the religious movement that he leads; they made a significant contribution to the end of the cold war. However, on abortion, I believe that he is a minority interest. I respect his objection to abortion, but I find his objection to contraception puzzling. What is of greater concern to me is the determination of the Vatican to try to influence the outcome of the Cairo conference. I hope that my hon. Friends in the Government will resist the Vatican's attempts to water down the final declaration.
    It is absolutely vital that the Cairo conference is a success and picks up the gauntlet thrown down by the G7 summit. We must now establish a global demographic plan. I have not seen the final draft document which is being circulated, but I understand that it runs to 118 pages and has 16 chapters. It should have only four pages and be set out in simple terms. The Government have made a big input into the preparation of the document. After all, it was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who got the issue of population on to the G7 agenda, and I know that officials in the Overseas Development Administration have been very active.
    I shall make several points about the Cairo conference and the final declaration. First, it is essential that the conference steers away from making abortion a big issue. It is a matter for national Governments to decide, not for international conferences. Secondly, I hope that the final declaration recognises the significance of the fact that reproductive health is included in it. After all, healthy mothers and children lead to smaller families.
    Thirdly, I hope that the conference will recognise the significant role that non-governmental organisations can play. I would like to see NGOs around the world follow the example of charities such as Population Concern and Marie Stopes International, which pioneered the concept of social marketing in family planning.
    As ever, the key outstanding issue for the Cairo conference is that of resources. I believe that the world is at a crossroads on that issue. We must decide whether population growth is a fundamental issue; if so, we must ensure that it has proper funding. It is estimated that, by 2000, a reproductive health programme will need some $17 billion, of which the family planning component will be $10.2 billion. Two thirds of that can come from developing countries.
    If all developed countries contributed 4 per cent. of their overseas aid budget for family planning, population policies and population programmes, that would raise more than $8 billion, and more than make up the shortfall. If that was forthcoming, we would see the world population stabilise at about the 10 billion to 11 billion mark.
    The British Government have a fine record in this field. I am proud of their record, and I am prepared to defend it. I know of few other areas of government which have seen such a significant increase in funding as the area of population programmes. I know that the Government are
    282
    reluctant to set targets, but I urge them to take the figure of 4 per cent. seriously and to recognise the urgency of the situation.
    Generations look to the Cairo conference to come up with a solution. If it can establish the kernel of a global demographic family planning programme, if the Governments of the world can commit themselves to substantial increases in funding, and if Britain can say that it has played a part in that, the conference will be a turning point in our history, global turmoil in the next millennium will be averted, and the British Government will be able to say that they played a part in a monumental year. If all that happens, it will have been worth while.
    6.54 pm
    Mr. Robert Hughes: With the problems of the developed and the developing world, one would expect that what is needed is a sense of mission and vision. Sadly, that is lacking in the Government's policies.
    We have almost become too familiar with the statistics but it is worth putting at least some of them on the record. We are all aware that the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product is desirable, but no Government in this country of whatever complexion has ever reached that target, although the Labour Government got closest.
    Currently, our percentage of GNP is hovering at about 0.3 per cent., but by the year 1995–96 it will be down to 0.26 per cent. of GNP. We are going the wrong way: we are going backwards all the time and giving less and less. The Government will argue that it is not so much a matter of arbitrary statistics plucked out the air as about quality and delivery. If we look at what is happening in the world, however, it is clear that the situation is getting much worse.
    Trends suggest that by the end of this decade 770 million people will lack access to safe water and 100 million children will not be enrolled in primary schools. Moreover, the number of people living in absolute poverty is rising by 2 per cent. per annum, so by the year 2000 that figure is likely to have risen from 1.3 billion to 1.5 billion —about a quarter of the world's population.
    Access to health services is remarkably low. In Mozambique, for example, 61 per cent. of the population have no access to health services. In Uganda, 39 per cent. have no access to health services. Elsewhere in Africa the picture is similar, and in the Indian sub-continent things are not much better. For those who have not seen the document and who want to study the matter in detail I commend the Actionaid publication, "The Reality of Aid 1994", which calls for comprehensive reading and a lot of study.
    The argument about overseas aid—how it is used and how it is delivered—has gone on for a long time. Some years ago, my late friend Judith Hart, when she was Minister for Overseas Development, pointed out that trade had an important part to play in assisting developing countries. All of us realised that we did not want recipient countries to be simply supplicants living off the crumbs from the rich man's table: we wanted to see them develop their own economies and sustain themselves, but the balance is now completely the wrong way round.
    The Government rest on trade figures as being wholly wonderful. They forget that 40 per cent. of British aid is tied to goods and services bought from this country. In many cases, developing countries are paying more for the

    283
    goods than they might otherwise pay. What we are seeing is not a new world order, but a sort of new economic imperialism. We must address that topic.
    Due to the shortage of time, I shall concentrate on the specific problems of Uganda, which has been struggling on two fronts: first, to recover from the Amin years and, secondly, to cope with the immense spread of the AIDS virus. As though that were not enough, it now faces an immense problem as a consequence of the horrific conflict in Rwanda, with bodies floating down the Kagera river to the north-western shores of Lake Victoria. The health problems that they pose are too horrific to contemplate. I am grateful to the Minister and to Peter Troy of the disaster unit of the emergency aid department of the ODA for giving me a copy of a letter of 15 June from the high commission in Uganda saying that that particular problem is now being contained. However, the Government believe that there is no need for an emergency aid contribution at this stage, apart from urgently needed medical drugs for the worst affected areas, including Mpigi, Rakai, Masaka and Kalangala. Has sanction been given for those medical supplies? What other steps will be taken to deal with the problem, which in my view will persist for a long time to come? Some people in Uganda feel that they have been let down because past promises have not been fulfilled.
    We have all heard trumpeted from the Dispatch Box or on television immense new programmes of aid to be provided in different parts of the world, but sometimes it does not arrive. For example, Mr. Manuel Pinto, Member of Parliament for Rakai and director-general of the Uganda AIDS Commission secretariat, says that Actionaid UK and Virgin Atlantic were to collect an airlift of materials for AIDS patients from Europe to take to Uganda, but none of it has arrived and there are no signs of its arriving. I have asked Actionaid to investigate the matter and to give me a report.
    The Minister acknowledged in his speech that aid and development policy were inextricably linked with foreign policy, that aid and development strategy were not only about provision or delivery of money or materials, and that of primary importance was the creation of political stability to allow for reconstruction and growth. It is in view of that that I wish to deal quickly with two other issues.
    The first is what is happening in Angola, where a great tragedy is unfolding. The pluralistic electoral process brokered by the United Nations broke down when UNITA refused to accept the election results. The problem is that in the discussions and negotiations the western Governments, and Britain in particular, exhorted and pressured the legitimate Government of Angola to make one concession after another to UNITA' s Savimbi. We are now at the dangerous stage at which the United Nations might even withdraw its mandate, which has been extended only until 30 June.
    We have to grasp such problems. It is no use brokering an agreement and then walking away from it. We have to realise that loss of life is continuing both as a result of the fighting between the two forces and due to lack of food and starvation because humanitarian aid is not getting through. Only yesterday a United Nations aid convoy was attacked and more than half the convoy burnt. Why cannot we grasp the nettle? Why cannot we see that we have to deal with the
    284
    problem? We ought to look closely at the involvement and engagement of Zaire in the problem. We must face up to these things. It is necessary for the Government to take action. The situation cannot be allowed to continue.
    We are in great danger of making the same mistake in Mozambique as was made in Angola. In Mozambique the pluralist election process is being discussed and moved forward. The United Nations has not learnt the lesson of its failings in Angola. It did not make sure that the combatants were properly disarmed. It did not ensure that the influence of the central Government extended throughout the whole country. As a result of that failure, we have seen a terrible breakdown. We must learn the lessons for Mozambique and make sure that policies are carried forward properly.
    There is a tremendous new force in Africa. We all expect great things from the new, democratic South Africa. It has tremendous problems to solve on its own doorstep. South Africa has dominated the region in a malign way for decades. It can now do so in a benign way, but problems remain to be resolved. There is an argument about whether South Africa will suck in investment to the detriment of its friends in the front line states, but that is an issue of which the South African Government are well aware. We have to discuss the problems with the people round about.
    As I said at the beginning of my speech, we must deal with the problems which are manifest throughout the world. We do not have time to go into them all tonight, but the spectre of poverty and ill health stalks the land. We require political will and firm commitments, but I honestly do not believe that we shall get such commitments—so that promises can be translated into reality—until we have a Labour Government.
    7.4 pm
    Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to today's debate, despite the fact that the issue of overseas aid does not dominate my postbag. I receive articulate and well-argued letters from concerned groups, as we all do, but when I receive letters from ordinary individuals they do not ask why the Government are not spending more: they usually ask why the Government spend as much as they do overseas when there is still so much to be done at home. For most taxpayers, spending on overseas aid is not a key priority. That may well be a matter for regret, but it needs to be recognised. Those of us who want to lift overseas aid up the pecking order of priorities need to make the case, not to convince ourselves but to convince those who have to foot the bill. That is why I believe that the Opposition's motion is ill conceived as well as ill considered. It is ill considered simply because it flies in the face of the facts.
    I do not believe that the Opposition heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister said to us this afternoon. He pointed out that at £2.2 billion this year our overseas programme is the sixth biggest in the world. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that new Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures are likely to be released tomorrow showing that in 1993 the United Kingdom's aid:GNP ratio was above the average for all donors and that the United Kingdom was one of only seven donors which increased their aid. That is good news. Praise from the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is neither here nor there, but praise from the OECD and the United Nations is worth acknowledging.

    285
    The Opposition's motion is ill conceived because it represents a missed opportunity. Instead of using the debate to make the case for an even greater commitment to overseas aid, the Opposition blithely assume that the case has already been taken on board by the public, which it has not, and then indulge themselves in somewhat sanctimonious, holier-than-thou platitudinising, which rings a bit hollow. It is easy to engage in parliamentary knockabout as to who will achieve the 0.7 per cent. of GNP target first. In the mouths of the Liberal Democrats, it is irrelevant. They once talked about 1 per cent. That is laudable perhaps, but it is neither here nor there: it is all moonshine. In the mouths of Labour Members, it is hypocrisy. When the Labour party was last in office, so parlous was the state of public finances under its stewardship that it had to announce cuts of millions in its overseas aid plans. Whether it is under the shop stewards of yesteryear or—who knows—the ship's steward of tomorrow, it will amount to the same thing: high-minded rhetoric combined with a fatal failure to deliver.
    I should like our electors and taxpayers to understand why overseas aid is so important, not only to other countries but to our country. That is one of the reasons why in my constituency about two years ago I brought together a range of individuals from local aid organisations and pressure groups such as Christian Aid, UNICEF, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Results and others to form the Chester World Development Group. Our aim was not simply to reinforce our prejudices, which is easily done, as we can see from the Opposition Benches, but to find others who may not have given such issues much consideration and to try to convince them.
    Last Friday, for instance, we met the leading high street bankers in our community at the Institute of Bankers in Chester and together we examined the issue of third-world debt. The House has been reminded starkly of the dilemma: debt and interest payments due from the third world are three times more than all the aid that they now receive. According to the OECD, the poorest people in the world paid the rich nations £13.4 billion more in debt repayments in 1992 than we gave them in aid.
    What are we to do about third-world debt? As the world recognises, even if the Opposition will not, Britain has taken a lead. It has cancelled £1 billion of debt owed by the poorest nations. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the Trinidad terms back in September 1990, he also asked the UK commercial banks to make "a comparable response". So far, that response has not been forthcoming. Instead, the banks have either sold off the bulk of their third-world debt portfolio to other financial institutions on the secondary market, or they have retained the debt. Neither of those approaches provides any reduction in the debt burden of countries with a desperate lack of resources in which millions of innocent people face an enormous struggle to survive.
    The 40 low-income countries have a gross national product of less than $650 per head per annum; yet they owe $4.3 billion to the financial institutions of the richest nations. The humanitarian argument is the overriding argument for reducing the debts of the poorest countries, but there are other important reasons—reasons of self-interest—why commercial banks and other financial institutions should respond to the call for debt relief. If the shackles of debt can be removed from the poorest countries so that they can begin to build their economies, many of the products and services that they will require will have to be
    286
    obtained from the industrialised countries. That would be good news for us, for our economy, for businesses in our country and for the customers of the commercial banks.
    Rightly, the high street banks increasingly promote their role in the community. When there is a disaster in the developing world, the banks are always among the first to step forward to offer help, for example, by providing collecting centres for aid. They are ready to help actively with the short-term crisis, as part of their commitment to the worldwide community. They could promote a more positive image for themselves by acting to reduce the debt burden on the poorest countries in the long term too. In making provision against their profits for non-payment of the capital interest on loans for the poorest countries, the banks have already borne the adverse effects of the debt crisis on their profits. Reducing the outstanding debts would have a minimal impact on their results and on the expectations of their shareholders and depositors.
    What intrigued me about the meeting with the bankers in Chester was the fact that, for many of them, it was clearly the first time the issue had been properly discussed; yet it affects their shareholders and customers, just as the Government's approach to third-world debt affects their customers and shareholders—the electorate and the taxpayer. Of course, there is more to be done. One step is to take the public with us on the issue. A top-down policy without a bottom-up understanding and shared ownership of that policy will not work in the long term.
    I am pleased that the briefing notes that Christian Aid —whose head of finance, Paul Tyler, made such a key contribution to our meeting with the bankers in Chester —sent to hon. Members for today's debate acknowledged the considerable progress that has been made in recent years. In the south, in the past three decades, the mortality rate of young children has nearly halved, adult literacy has increased by more than one third, the number of people with access to safe drinking water has increased by more than two thirds and the proportion of the world's people living in absolute poverty has fallen from perhaps 50 per cent. to 20 per cent. But that still leaves 1.2 billion people living in absolute poverty.
    Aid remains essential for the poorest countries, but overall the economies of the developing world will benefit far more from increased access to trade opportunities than from aid on its own. Christian Aid is one of the organisations which are rightly pressing for much more to be done. It is also one of those organisations which rightly acknowledge that much that is positive can be said about the British aid programme. In no small measure, that is due to the remarkable leadership that the Overseas Development Administration has enjoyed in recent years under my noble Friend Baroness Chalker, ably supported by my right hon. Friends.
    Much that is positive can be said about the British aid programme, but the Opposition motion singularly fails to say it. That was clear from the contribution of the hon. Member for Monklands, West, who spoke movingly of his experiences in Africa, but failed to deliver any prescription. He was a fine example of high-minded rhetoric without the will to deliver. The Opposition motion fails to say anything positive. That is because the Opposition remain a party of protest. They just want to make a noise: we want to make a difference—and in this vital area I believe that we shall continue to do so.
    7.13 pm
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: I congratulate the Labour party on its selection of this subject for the debate. It seems to have based its choice on the publication of the document entitled "The Reality of Aid" produced by Actionaid. I endorse the analysis in that document and the demands that it makes.
    I approach the subject from a very important perspective, which is in danger of being neglected entirely and has been neglected during tonight's debate. A month ago, I attended the high-level segment of the second annual meeting of the Commission for Sustainable Development at the United Nations. It was also attended by the Secretary of State for the Environment and Baroness Chalker.
    Astonishingly, no statement was made following that meeting about its outcome and there was no debate on it. It is astonishing because, in theory, the CSD should be one of the most important global agencies. This year's meeting was especially important. Even though it has a permanent staff of only just over 20, following the Rio summit, it is charged with the task of leading the world towards sustainable development and, in doing so, of saving the planet from the ecological catastrophe that it is generally agreed may be facing us. One cannot get much more important than that.
    It is essential to consider overseas aid in the context of what the CSD is supposed to be doing and is trying to achieve, especially as one of the decisions at this year's meeting, which was emphasised by the United Kingdom delegation in particular, was the need to establish close liaison between the CSD and the Bretton Woods institutions—the World bank and the International Monetary Fund—and the new World Trade Organisation, which has a trade and environment committee, and high time, too.
    I strongly support the demand for a White Paper on overseas aid, not least because it is time for us to ask what such aid is intended to achieve. Not long ago, it would have been assumed that the answer to a question like that was that the purpose of aid was to enable the countries of the south—to use popular shorthand—to emulate the development model of the north and in that way achieve similar patterns and levels of production and consumption. If Rio established one thing, however, it was that that idea is now entirely untenable because the natural environment is incapable of providing for and absorbing the effects of constantly expanding consumption with an expanding world population, which is what we will have for the foreseeable future, whatever policies are pursued. That is a fundamental fact, which we must understand.
    Gro Harlem Brundtland put it well at an international symposium on sustainable consumption in January—part of the Rio process—when she said:
    "It took all of human history to grow to the 600 billion dollars world economy of the year 1900. Today, the world economy grows by more than this every two years. Each year, economic expansion corresponds to the entire economy of South America. Only a lifetime away, our 14 trillion dollar world economy may have grown fivefold …It is simply impossible for the world as a whole to sustain a Western level of consumption for all. In fact, if 7 billion people were to consume as much energy and resources as we do in the West today we would need 10 worlds, not one, to satisfy all our needs."
    That talk of 10 worlds is based on a statistical calculation of what resources, and capacity to absorb the effects of production and consumption, are required. If we take that seriously—we must take it very seriously indeed
    288
    —it implies an enormously radical change of direction. It implies a turning point in human history and certainly a far-reaching rewriting of economic theory and therefore of ideas about economic development.
    There is all the difference in the world between a model of development based on constant economic expansion, which intends to benefit the poor either through the celebrated trickle-down effect, or by some combination of redistributive taxation and income policy, and the model that recognises, as does more and more expert opinion, that there are absolute limits to expansion and that social equity has to be achieved within those limits. All that was recognised at the CSD, which comprises 53 representative nations which this year were represented by their environment Ministers. All the. CSD's assumptions are things to which the UK is signed up in declarations and policy statements.
    At the CSD, there was a constant repetition of certain fundamental demands. First, we needed new indicators of economic success, as it was recognised that growth rate and GNP are hopelessly inadequate and misleading indicators. Secondly—a revolutionary idea—there is a need to internalise environmental costs so that the real costs of any enterprise in production and consumption are expressed increasingly in prices, and that is particularly relevant to transport. If it were applied to transport, it would transform the pattern of production, distribution and trade, and particularly trade. Thirdly, we must develop economic instruments to encourage development of the sustainable kind. There was a demand for significant changes in taxation patterns, including a far greater emphasis on resource taxation and a reduction in taxation on people and, particularly, on employment.
    All this in turn has far-reaching implications for overseas development policies. The countries of the south need to be encouraged and convinced that their new development patterns must be sustainable. That is entirely consistent with the demands of Actionaid, Oxfam, Christian Aid and so on that aid should be focused on poverty reduction, the empowerment of the poor and human development. The organisations are talking about a kind of bottom-up pattern of development, and not the alleviation of poverty through the trickle-down process, which is an entirely discredited theory now.
    The southern countries need to be persuaded and convinced of that. However, there is no way in which the countries of the south can be persuaded to for go conventional patterns of growth unless the north and the elites within the southern countries are prepared to modify their current patterns of profligate, unsustainable and conspicuous consumption. That is another fundamental reality. Currently, 25 per cent. of the world's population consume 80 per cent. of the world's resources and produce, for example, 75 per cent. of the world's municipal and industrial wastes.
    Those ideas are no longer the domain of a kind of green fringe. They are now part of an emerging consensus on an international level. The ideas are found, for example, in Paleokrassas's chapter in the European White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment. They can be seen in a recent brilliant essay by Herman Daly, who was, until recently, a senior economist at the World bank. They can be found in the report of the Oslo symposium on sustainable consumption, with its emphasis on reducing transportation and on what is called the proximity principle, which is the very opposite of the law of

    289
    comparative advantage on which the modern theory of trade is based. The proximity principle says that one should produce as near to the market as possible, thus reducing transportation requirements. That changes everything in relation to the GATT agreement.
    The agenda is being elaborated now as part of the Rio process in a plethora of seminars and conferences on various aspects of sustainability and in the inter-sessionals of the CSD. It is a painstaking process, especially because of the need to achieve consensus. We should pay tribute to the heroic efforts of Klaus Töfler, the German Environment Minister, in trying to create that consensus. It is a painstaking process, but it is also a race against time. We have an urgent problem. There is conflict between getting it right and the need for urgent action. Töfler put it rather well, saying it is
    "better to get things precisely right at a somewhat later date than to get them precisely wrong now".
    That is only half the position, and we must get things going quickly as well. There are—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
    7.24 pm
    Lady Olga Maitland: May I first give a word of caution to the Opposition, who seem hell-bent on spending the taxpayer's money on a host of projects, both nationally and internationally? I draw their attention to the remarks made by the Minister for Overseas Development when she spoke in another place:
    "No one would thank us for putting ourselves once again in hock to the IMF by such spending as is boasted about by some Members of the Labour Opposition."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 June 1992; Vol. 538, c. 431.]
    Salutary words of advice indeed.
    I shall concentrate my remarks on the phrase in the Government amendment drawing attention to the diversity of agencies which they wish to bring in to help with delivering overseas aid. Among the companies, consultants and non-governmental organisations upon which the British aid programme is heavily dependent is an organisation in my constituency, the Crown Agents.
    The House will know that the Crown Agents provide a range of services to the ODA, as they do to other bilateral and multilateral donors. I have seen for myself the excellent work they have been undertaking in Malawi on behalf of the Japanese Government, the European Commission and the World bank. Their considerable logistical expertise and experience have, for the past two years, been providing invaluable assistance in delivering humanitarian aid in Bosnia.
    The ODA convoy teams managed by the Crown Agents have, for the past two years, quietly established a level of professional competence and excellence in delivering aid safely and reliably to the most desperate people in the world. It is also worth paying tribute to those who have lost their lives on Crown Agents convoys, as regrettably they have been given barely a word of thanks. We should remember them.
    The Crown Agents spread their work across the globe, covering more than 130 countries in the developing world. They have a declared and proven commitment to the highest standards of efficiency and integrity and are independent of any commercial interest.
    I stress one example of a country in which I have seen the Crown Agents, and indeed other agencies, operate—
    290
    Malawi. The lesson which I learnt there particularly was the value of targeting aid accurately and precisely and in Malawi we have certainly seen the benefits of that.
    One of the factors that struck me keenly is how effective the international aid community can be when those involved work together. When the atrocious human rights record, which had been continuing for many years in Malawi, reached a point at which it was quite unbearable, the international aid community said that it would withdraw all aid apart from essential humanitarian assistance until it was resolved. The upshot was that elections were held and—to cut a long story short—I was privileged to be an observer at those elections recently.
    Malawi is the fifth poorest country in the world. It is a country where life expectancy is only 47, where one child in three dies before the age of five and where only an average of 40 per cent. of the population is literate. In addition, it is one of most densely populated countries in Africa. We have seen what can happen when such countries go wildly out of control, with people fighting for land as in Rwanda.
    That lesson of targeting aid really came home to me when we landed at Lilongwe airport, a marvellous edifice which was one of President Banda's prestige projects. It was unacceptable. We drove along a magnificent road into town and yet 20 ft away from the motorway people were hungry, barefoot and living in mud and wattle houses. There was no clean water and disease was constantly in their lives. The essence of survival was always foremost in their minds.
    When we give aid, we must ensure that it is used in the right way. Perhaps the most classic example that has hit me was provided by a visit to the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Blantyre. As I entered, I saw workmen feverishly putting together a special intensive care unit that had been designed for President Banda, at enormous cost to the country's health budget. Just down the corridor, the hospital's director was rightly outraged. He said, "What can I do? We are running out of antibiotics and anaesthetics, while money is being spent on that unit."
    I am proud to say that the British Government have taken the problem on board and have persuaded the new Malawi Government to divert their efforts away from prestige projects and into rural areas and districts. When I visited a district hospital in a rural area of Chikwawa, I saw the extent to which poverty was affecting medical care. I think it appropriate for the British Government to target assistance on that area.
    Education is also important. It is all very well for the education programme to provide university professors, but I think that we should think again about primary education. I welcome the British Government's efforts to encourage the Malawi Government to move away from prestige projects in this regard as well, and to concentrate on primary education in rural areas.
    In Malawi, primary education does not mean what it means in this country. Anyone aged between five and 45 can attend primary school there, learning basic literary skills. Without education, it is impossible for any country to develop—or, indeed, to understand how to handle its economy and the importance of family planning. I welcome the Government's efforts to focus particularly on helping women to become more educated and to be more confident about going to school: only when women can take control of their own lives will a successful family planning programme come into effect.

    291
    The problems of Malawi are wide and deep, but it is particularly encouraging that the Malawi people hold Britain in the highest regard. They turn to Britain at every moment of crisis; and by developing good trade, cultural and political links we are not only helping the Malawi people, but setting up friends for life.
    7.32 pm
    Mr. Mike Watson: I welcome the opportunity to speak, not least because of the rather mean-minded comments of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). What he said flies in the face of the facts, and even contradicts the Minister's observation that the people of Britain feel generous when it comes to aid provision and want it to be increased.
    We have heard the figures often enough this evening. We know that current aid spending in this country is 0.28 per cent. of gross national product—the lowest-ever level —and that, because of the freeze, it will fall to 0.26 per cent. by 1995–96. The United Kingdom will then rank 14th in the Development Assistance Committee's list of 21 OECD members. That is not a record of which the Government should be proud; perhaps it explains why they never call debates on overseas aid, which have to take place in Opposition time.
    Earlier this year, the committee reported:
    "The United Kingdom has not increased its total aid allocations in an amount corresponding to its increased multilateral commitments, particularly through the EU. There was widespread concern among other DAC Members that this pressure resulting from a lack of growth in aid resources, if continued in a programme as important as the British one, could result in a diminution of the distinctive British contribution to the overall donor effort."
    That is quite a damning indictment. Despite the comments of the hon. Member for City of Chester, I am sure that his constituents are not the mean, miserly moaners that he suggested them to be, writing to complain about the level of aid spending. That certainly runs counter to the trend —and I do not refer only to other hon. Members. Although there is considerable poverty in my constituency in Glasgow, people there are generous and feel that the Government should also be generous in helping the developing world. I have never been to Chester, and after what the hon. Gentleman said, I have no intention of going.
    Nor does the trend suggested by the hon. Gentleman match the mood of opinion polls. Following the run-up to the general election of April 1992, a Labour politician might not be expected to be a particular exponent of opinion polls. I can tell the House, however, that an opinion poll survey commissioned by the World Development Movement just three weeks ago found that almost one person in two in this country thought that Britain should increase its aid as a percentage of national wealth to meet or top the European average within five years. Incidentally, more than half those polled thought that the peace dividend should be used to increase aid.
    Sixty per cent. of respondents said that helping poor people in poor countries should be the most important reason for aid. In a MORI poll carried out for the aid charity War on Want last month, which surveyed 1,900 adults throughout the country, two thirds believed that the United Kingdom's aid spending should be equal to or above the average across Europe. If the calculation
    292
    involves only the 12 member countries of the European Union, that places the figure at 0.45 per cent., 0.17 per cent. above the British level.
    May I throw one more statistic at the House? Fully 67 per cent. of Conservatives who were interviewed wanted aid spending to be at or above the European average—only 4 per cent. fewer than members of the Labour party.
    Mr. Brandreth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Watson: I am sorry, but I cannot give way because of the time restriction.
    That certainly gives the lie to the theory that charity begins at home. I hope that we can now bury that idea: people want more aid to be given.
    Mr. Brandreth rose —
    Mr. Watson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I mentioned him specifically.
    Mr. Brandreth: I shall be as brief as I can. My point is that constituents write to me complaining about the amount that we give. The whole point of my meeting the bankers was that they were saying that their customers often felt that they should not be reducing the amount of overseas debt. I was saying that our task was to encourage people to understand the reasons why an even greater commitment to overseas aid is so important. The hon. Gentleman is mischief-making in order to make a debating point on a serious subject.
    Mr. Watson: I do not need any lectures on the fact that this is a serious subject. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have been present throughout the debate. I am treating it seriously and I am not interested in making debating points.
    Mr. Brandreth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When an hon. Member has been in the Chamber since the beginning of a debate, is it in order for another hon. Member to suggest that he has not been? I have not left the Chamber once, except for 30 seconds.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) has made his statement. No doubt the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) will note what he has said.
    Mr. Watson: If the hon. Gentleman has been present throughout the debate, I withdraw what I said. But I have used up enough time on this point; let me simply say that people are more than happy for our aid effort to be increased.
    Let me deal with a specific aspect of the aid that we have given in recent years. I refer to the middle east and, in particular, to the question of Palestinian refugees. Recently, I was privileged to visit a number of countries where such refugees are placed. It is the responsibility of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to deliver aid to the refugees. There are 2.7 million of them in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the west bank and Gaza, and UNRWA performs an essential task in delivering education, health care and general welfare to 59 camps in difficult and often dangerous conditions.
    When I visited those camps—in particular, Shatila and Bourj el-Barajni in Beirut—it was pointed out to me, and to other members of the delegation, that the total UNRWA budget of some £400 million was inadequate to deal with

    293
    the needs of the Palestinians. The British contribution to that total, incidentally, is £6 million in direct aid, but a contribution is also made through the European Union.
    In Lebanon, Palestinians do not enjoy citizenship, have no rights to education, are not allowed to work, are stuck in the camps and have no individual rights. I ask the Government to turn their attention to the Palestinians' needs, especially in the Lebanon.
    When we met UNRWA officials, especially Lionel Brisson, head of the field office in the Lebanon, a number of projects were brought to our attention. Some of them were basic and simply involved rehousing Palestinians, many of whom were made refugees in 1948 and displaced persons following the conflict after the Israeli attacks in 1982 and again in 1986–87. Simple matters such as the construction of internal sewerage systems and clinical laboratories in the camps and the provision of general housing are pressing for those concerned. They specifically asked that I raise this matter, which I am pleased to do. I hope that the Minister will reply because those refugees are in a desperate position and the recent peace negotiations —the Gaza-Jericho accord—mean nothing to them. They have been abandoned, but feel that UNRWA could look after them, if only it had adequate resources to do so.
    I also met UNRWA officials when I visited Gaza. Although I have found no hon. Member opposed to the Gaza-Jericho agreement, it can progress no further because of the lack of resources in the municipality in Gaza. I met the Palestinian police and the army general in charge of overall security in Gaza. Of the $5 billion committed there over the next five years to underwrite the accord of September 1993, only $30 million has been delivered. The local administration needed in Gaza cannot be set up and services cannot be provided to the people in what is the most densely populated part of the world. Thus the people are caught in a catch-22 situation: the donor countries will not release the money because there are no accounting or taxation systems, so the money that is spent cannot be accounted for; yet the Palestinians do not have the money to install those systems and ensure that what they do is transparent.
    The donor countries seem to be interested only in capital projects, which means that the people of Gaza are stuck and the whole peace process could grind to a halt. That could never have been the intention of the donor countries and those who brokered the historic agreement of last year. UNRWA will act as a conduit for funds if that is how the donor countries are happy to proceed. It is important that the logjam be broken. Civil servants, local government administrators and legal administrators are needed to set up those processes to allow the Palestinians to help themselves. Nobody ever believed that the peace process would grind to a halt because Gaza did not have the resources to do what the agreement allows it to do.
    If the British Government will not assist, will they get together with the other donor Governments and ensure that the funds to enable the Palestinians to build their own authority in Gaza and, one hopes, take the peace process a step further are put into place without further delay? Not to allow that accession, as part of the peace process, to continue will simply play into the hands of the extremists, which could bring the whole process to a grinding halt. That would be tragic not just for the Palestinians but for those countries that have so patiently and meticulously brought the peace negotiations to their present position.
    7.42 pm
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I am grateful for an opportunity to speak in this important debate. I apologise for not being here for the opening speeches, but the rail strike meant that I had to go more slowly by car to Exeter to speak to Exeter university agriculture students. Although I enjoyed that, I was sorry to miss the opening speeches in a debate of such profound value and importance.
    In this Chamber and beyond, it is widely recognised that the policies of Her Majesty's Government on overseas aid and development are influential. Not only do they assist the poorest of the poor, finding jobs for people in many countries overseas and creating sustainable development, but they are honest, give value for money and respect the people whom they attempt to serve.
    I speak from personal experience. Hon. Members often do not have the benefit of personal experience but speak from other people's experience. I was keen to contribute to the debate because I have had the benefit of learning about the Government's aid and trade policies from the grass roots—the developing countries' perspective—for some time. I was the director of fund raising for the Save the Children Fund, Britain's oldest and largest children's charity for developing nations.
    I now have the honour to be on the United Kingdom board of UNICEF, so I have a little experience—not much, as I have not been there long—of United Nations agencies' work through UNICEF. I also work hard as a partner of UNESCO in my work as chairman of the AMAR appeal, a charitable organisation registered in the United Kingdom, which works in the Persian Gulf. We now also work in eastern Europe—Bosnia, Romania and Poland—and we hope also to work in central Asia. Thus, I have had personal experience of the aid policies that we are debating tonight. I also declare a personal family interest: my husband, Sir Michael Caine, is deputy chairman of the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
    The Opposition motion says that the poorest are not aided by the British Government. In fact, while our policies and agencies cannot hope to touch all of the many millions of the poorest of the poor, I can honestly say that they reach out and meet the needs of a large number of them. In the aftermath of the Gulf war, when the degradation of the marsh Arabs in Mesopotamia and the plight of the Iraqi Shi-ites hit no headlines anywhere, while the Kurdish tragedy was spilling over on our screens, to whom should I turn first but to the Minister for Overseas Development? She found time to give me invaluable assistance. Her Department works hard and carefully.
    From that day to this, assisted by the Overseas Development Agency—I pay tribute to Ron White who currently runs the Iraq desk—and the European Community Humanitarian Office of the European Union, we have been able to feed some 2.5 million needy people. By "needy" I mean starving people who have no water, who may have cholera, anaemia or bilharzia. Some of them are dying and we cannot save their lives but it has been heartening to discover the great understanding in the Overseas Development Agency for that important work. We now have a team of 60 medical staff and 160 teachers on the ground in southern Iran. I hasten to add that by no means is that work fully funded by the ODA. How wonderfully easy my life as chairman would be if it were. We make extensive public appeals.

    295
    The late Neil Marten was the Minister responsible for overseas development when the non-governmental organisation pound-for-pound policy was created. Some hon. Members here tonight, and many hon. Members not in the Chamber, will recall how he set about that task. He invented that policy and countless millions of the poorest of the poor have benefited from it. He made it possible for British non-governmental organisations, large and small, to start excellent projects—for which it is not always possible to gain the necessary support from the general public—and have pound-for-pound matching grant aid. A pound given in a church collection is matched by a pound given by the Government; a pound raised by shaking tins on street corners or at Victoria station is matched by a pound taken out of the pocket of UK taxpayers.
    I know the difficulty of justifying such far-sighted aid and development policies when people in inner cities or rural areas such as my constituency have a difficult time financially, particularly during a recession. For example, the margins of farming in Dartmoor are so slender that they are sometimes invisible. Yet overall, the benign policies and views of the Government and the United Kingdom public continue to make our overseas aid programme one of the largest and most important in the world today.
    The Commonwealth Development Corporation was set up in 1947. My father-in-law, Sir Sidney Caine, was instrumental in the Treasury in bringing that into being. I am proud of the fact that Her Majesty's Government foster the concept of creating sustainable development, and that we have done so since the immediate post-war period by mens of the CDC.
    I have witnessed many possibilities for sustainable development in which the Commonwealth Development Corporation, through loans, has invested British taxpayers' money. Indeed, I think that it has only to wash its face; it does not aim to make a profit and it must not make a loss. Any small surplus is ploughed back in again. By careful handling of the funds and the policies, it has created many hundreds of thousands of jobs in the developing world. The organisation now works in about 47 different countries.
    When I was in Brussels recently, the senior ECHO official, Mr. Donato Chiarini, and his superior, the director, Mr. Gomez Reino, spoke most warmly about the non-governmental organisation world in the United Kingdom, commenting favourably on that system of charitable support for the poorest of the poor and for sustainable development, which flows out of the United Kingdom. That non-governmental organisation effort would be much less than half the relative success that it is if Her Majesty's Government did not perceive the importance of assisting throughout the world in so many difficult regions, in regions of conflict, in regions of poverty, and in regions of unbelievable human misery, such as the Mesopotamian marshlands.
    I commend Her Majesty's Government for the fine work that they do in overseas aid and in sustainable development and I urge them to do more.
    7.51 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I wish to put on record my apologies to the House for missing half the debate. I was at the meeting of the Select Committee on Social Security and therefore obviously could not be in two places at once, although one does try.
    The debate must be put in the context of the horrors that confront the majority of the population of the world and the devastation that confronts a significant minority of the world's population. At any time, 20 per cent. of the world's population are desperately hungry; half are on the brink of complete starvation. Twenty-five per cent. of the world's population lack safe water, 33 per cent. live in conditions that none of us would recognise as anything other than dreadful poverty, and every year there are 8 million wholly preventable child deaths throughout the world. The slum conditions that used to appertain in Victorian England—and Scotland and Wales, for that matter—are being visited on the children of a fast-developing world where there is an increasing level of disproportionate poverty.
    Members of the House are pretty good at travelling. I hope that when they travel they manage to get outside the Sheraton hotel of whichever capital city they happen to have landed in, and go to look at the shanty towns that are growing around the capital cities of every third world country as a process of industrialisation and depopulation of rural areas takes place. I hope that they will look at the misery that those communities live in and have to suffer.
    In that context, one has to ask, what policies can be followed by any national Government, and what policies can be followed by multinational agencies, to try to redress those horrors? If we did not care about them, we would not even be debating them.
    Although in a short speech one can give only a few pointers, I think that the emphasis that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) to the problems of debt and debt write-off is important. Obviously, it is important to write off debts, which, frankly, have not been incurred in a spendthrift, dangerous or profligate way by those poor countries. They have been imposed on them by the rigidity of a commodity pricing system and a penurious banking system which drags money from the poorest to pay to the richest. A rapidly increasing transfer of wealth from the very poorest to the richest is taking place in the world. Wealth is not flowing in the direction in which it is needed.
    Although I welcome any debt write-off—obviously, everyone would welcome any debt write-off—it is not good enough to write off a debt if at the same time one does not try to create the economic conditions that can prevent a recurrence of that debt. If, as I said in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West, the commodity prices that are paid to poor farmers in those communities are not increased, the debt problem simply becomes worse. The poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa, even after Trinidad terms, are being forced to spend a huge proportion of their export earnings simply on paying debt to the banking systems of the north. It is wrong and it is immoral, and many people fully understand that.
    We have an aid budget in this country, insufficient and inadequate though it may be. The Government also promote a political philosophy, which is one of essentially trying to impose their curious view of the world and economic and political systems on the rest of the world.

    297
    They are increasingly trying to tie aid to political systems in the recipient countries. Increasingly, they are trying to tie aid to what they call economic restructuring and the development of a free market economy, in the clever mixture of words that Mrs. Thatcher was so good at using by saying that a free market economy equals a free society and a free democracy. It certainly does not. There are plenty of examples throughout the world of countries where there has been a totally free market economy and a fascist political system to ensure that it maintains itself as a free market economy. Throughout the Pinochet years in Chile there was very much a free market economy with a secret police to ensure that it stayed that way—and there was no excessive expenditure on the social needs of the people.
    There are pressures in the other direction because we, as millions of people do throughout the world, understand the unsustainability of the world's economic system. We cannot go on exploiting raw materials at the rate that we do, we cannot go on polluting the waters, we cannot go on overfishing the seas, and we cannot go on destroying natural forests, be they tropical rain forests, temperate forests, Arctic forests or sub-Arctic forests, without paying a penalty. The penalty is in climatic change; the penalty is in environmental disaster.
    It is not something that will happen; it is happening here and now. The Rio summit, the Rio conference, was an important step forward in that, for once, all the countries of the world at least met to discuss the common agenda of the environmental problems of the world.
    There were some serious flaws in the declaration at the end of the Rio summit. President Bush ensured that there were some serious flaws in it, because he was not prepared to agree to the transfer of technology and intellectual property to poor countries. Essentially, it was an attempt to maintain that power in the wealthier countries of the north.
    We have now had the GATT deal, which we debated last week. The GATT deal has been presented as a victory for everyone—"Everyone is a winner in GATT'. It is rather like The Sun bingo competition, which no one ever apparently loses. I do not welcome the GATT deal. It has some appalling side effects. For example, it is estimated that sub-Saharan African countries will lose $3 billion as a result of the GATT trade deal. It was far from welcomed universally by the Ministers of the southern and poorer countries who were there. For example, Shamsul Islam, the Commerce Minister of Bangladesh, said:
    "the concerns of the least developed countries have not been adequately reflected in the Final Act".
    He went on to ask for a comprehensive assessment of the results of the GATT round, and pointed out that the share of world trade by the least developed countries declined from 0.6 per cent. in 1980 to 0.3 per cent. in 1992. In that period, the ratio of their exports to gross domestic product decreased from 14.4 per cent. to 7 per cent. That is hardly a success story throughout the 1980s, and I suspect that the GATT treaty and the GATT deal that has come with it will not improve things for those countries; it will increase the disparity between the richest and the poorest nations. Those issues must seriously be tackled.
    We must then ask where the overseas aid budget of the British Government fits into that, as that is the one over which, one hopes, we have some control in the House. The experience of some of the expenditure on aid is appalling. There is a lack of examination of the side effects of major projects. The Mahawili dam in Sri Lanka was a marvelous
    298
    project; it is a shame that the people who lived around it could not afford to buy the electricity that was produced from it. The Pergau dam was a scandalous waste of money. It was designed to benefit corrupt politicians in the country concerned and to benefit certain companies in this country. There is nothing wrong with exporting goods from here, but let us be honest about what aid projects are for.
    We always have to ensure that any aid we send helps to promote sustainable development and to keep communities together, not to split them up. We must develop sustainable agriculture systems of the type that existed centuries before the European colonialists arrived in Africa, Asia and Latin America. We have no right to flood those countries for major dam projects, or to impose on them the excessive use of pesticides and chemical fertilisers. Sustainable development is the only way forward.
    Instead, the record of our aid budget has been appalling, and the fact that it is declining is also a disgrace. My hon. Friends have pointed out that many people support an increase in the aid budget because they understand that, in humanitarian terms, it is simply wrong that 8 million children a year should die of wholly preventable diseases and that a quarter of the world's population should go hungry every day. We have to do something about that, otherwise we shall reap the whirlwind in decades to come.
    8 pm
    Mr. Jim Lester: I always seem to follow the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in these debates—
    Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman should agree with me then.
    Mr. Lester: I do agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman says, but not with an awful lot of it.
    We debated GATT only a week ago, for instance. Bangladesh is one of the many poorer countries that will experience export growth—over 14 per cent. in its case —as a result of GATT. It was strange, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman should pick on it as one of the countries that will not benefit. The developing world fully co-operated in the GATT round and was one of the driving forces behind it. All the estimates that I have seen suggest that the developing world stands to benefit by more than a third in terms of world growth. Certainly we know that there are problems in certain sub-Saharan and African countries, but steps have been taken to deal with them, and it would be wrong to discourage the rest of the world just because there are likely to be problems with some of the weaker links—provided we can deal with those weaker links.
    I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). It was typically full of humanitarian concern, and he described visits that he has made and situations that he has witnessed. I assure him that not all of us stay in Sheraton hotels. I dare say I have stayed in more grubby places than has the hon. Member for Islington, North.
    We are all capable of reciting a litany of the world's problems, but I thought that the hon. Member for Monklands, West was short on solutions and particularly short on committing the Labour party to spending more money. He carefully avoided any such commitments,

    299
    presumably because the shadow Chancellor takes the same view of these matters as the Chancellor does. The problem will certainly not be solved by a White Paper.
    As for the Government motion, it is certainly accurate to say that we now provide more information about overseas aid and development than ever before. That is a direct result of the concerted campaign by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee for such information. Our report on China has already been mentioned. I am sure that most hon. Members who read our foreign affairs reports recognise their fairness and their independence.
    That brings me to the sloppy way in which the Opposition motion has been drafted, particularly as it relates to the Pergau dam affair. The Opposition seem to mutter it like an incantation—"Pergau dam, £300 million. Pergau dam, £300 million." The Select Committee is examining the matter objectively and we shall produce a report that will be both fair and accurate. The Opposition, too, should try to be fair and accurate; they should recognise that the dam is not a white elephant. Nor is it true to say that it is not wanted by the country concerned. It will last for 100 years, generating electricity, and it was well engineered. The extent of the commitment is £70 million over 14 years. That represents 1.3 per cent. of the aid and trade provisions budget, which in turn is only 9 per cent. of the total budget for overseas development. Any attempt, therefore, to link it with the genuine bilateral aid programme amounts to disinformation.
    It behoves the Labour party to recall that it invented the ATP programme during its period of office, a long while ago, yet now the Opposition criticise it. Are they prepared to see British industry go naked into the market places of the world? The contenders for the Labour leadership campaign on the issue of employment. Perhaps they should first check how much employment is provided by the companies involved in the Pergau dam affair. If they want to talk about employment in the United Kingdom, as well as improvements in the rest of the world, they should first clarify their position on the aid and trade provisions. They should certainly not confuse the latter with our major bilateral aid programme.
    I can certainly confirm what the Minister said about the British Government's commitment on debt. Along with two Labour and two Conservative Members, I happen to be a member of the African caucus, which has been doing a great deal of work on Ugandan debt and the debts held by sub-Saharan Africa. The most enthusiastically supportive people whom we have met have been the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both of whom are prepared to see the International Monetary Fund sell gold to achieve some movement in this area.
    The point I want to get across to the Opposition is that we cannot do this on our own. We are part of a multilateral organisation. To be sure, the enhanced Trinidad terms, which we invented and pushed for, apply; but unless we can persuade the Japanese to come on board, we can make no more progress. We would welcome help from the Opposition in these matters, instead of which they slate us while we continue to be positive and get on with the job. They should bring their influence to bear on the people who are impeding progress—in this case, the Japanese.
    The all-party group on overseas development set up a working party on multilateral debt. It has finished its
    300
    research and is now drafting its report. In this area, too, it is not the British who are holding up progress. We are trying to persuade the Americans, the major contributors, to change their policies. Most of us recognise that the writing off of bad debt must be framed and understood in a new way—without writing off bad debt. Perhaps we could put it in cold storage and call it something else; in any case, the way forward must involve the ending of repayments. It is no longer sensible of the Opposition to hammer away at us, claiming that it is all our fault. We are taking the lead in forcing through change, and we are not the ones preventing progress.
    I am entirely satisfied with the direction of our aid programme and the analysis given to it. I do not share the concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) about the proportion of the budget that goes to European Union multilateral organisations. If that aid is properly channelled and organised in the same way as we handle bilateral aid, it can have a cumulatively good effect. Of course, we all want the money to be wisely spent and carefully scrutinised, but there is nothing wrong with nations increasingly co-operating in this area.
    We receive many European documents—if people are only prepared to read them—that analyse the European aid programme. The European Community humanitarian office has just released to us a document of this type. It has already accredited eight of our NGOs—eight out of a total of 80. That is fine. They are all worthy organisations: the British Red Cross Society, Care Britain, Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Christian Aid, Feed the Children, Helpage International, Oxfam, and Save the Children Fund. These NGOs will be the recipients of money that comes partly from Britain and partly from the other 11 member states, and together they will be able to carry out worthwhile humanitarian aims.
    It is all very well to complain about an increasing proportion of the budget going elsewhere, but a lid has been put on the total budget. I, like the Opposition, want an increased aid programme; meanwhile, it is no good moaning about the proportion going elsewhere as long as overall limits are put on the total amount. In those conditions, the proportion going elsewhere will obviously increase. We look forward to an early increase in our aid budget.
    I want to comment principally this evening on the role of the United Nations, especially as it affects Rwanda. Of course we must also consider the United Nations in the context of Angola and Cambodia where the UN carried out operations. In Angola it conducted an election for a Government, but because the international community did not commit sufficient funds to the organisation and enough military power to disarm the combatants, the election was null and void and since then the situation has become worse. There have been more tragic and dreadful deaths in a country that has tremendous potential. With a proper Government it could develop that potential and its resources through links to South Africa. It is a tragedy that after the UN exercise the problem is worse.
    I have given many years of my life to Cambodia, and the situation there is precisely the same. There was tremendous UN participation in taking over a country in which genocide in my generation really came to the fore. The UN ran an election that everyone praised and 85 per cent. of the population turned out to elect the Government that they wanted. However, because we now seem to feel that

    301
    internationally we have done our bit, we have turned our backs on a country which continues to be undermined by the Khmer Rouge. The international community does not seem prepared to give that genuinely elected coalition Government the resources to carry out their function in defending the country's borders and dealing with people who do everything that they can to undermine the work to which we have all subscribed through the United Nations.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend think that the international co-operative efforts that he has described would be better handled by the United Nations, or does he agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), who seemed to place greater emphasis on the European Union?
    Mr. Lester: I am interested in that matter and I shall answer my hon. Friend's question as I develop my speech.
    The real concern about Rwanda is that there is no international will to deal with what I would describe as a machete-wielding militia. Let me read from the report about Rwanda that the Secretary-General sent to the Security Council:
    "The delay in reaction by the international community to the genocide in Rwanda has demonstrated graphically its extreme inadequacy to respond urgently with prompt and decisive action to humanitarian crises entwined with armed conflict."
    I shall not read the whole of the report. I responded to the hon. Member for Monklands, West when he said that the UNAMIR minimum presence was reduced. The report states:
    "since its original mandate did not allow it to take action when the carnage started, the international community appears paralysed in reacting almost two months later even to the revised mandate established by the Security Council…Our readiness and capacity for action has been demonstrated to be inadequate at best, and deplorable at worst, owing to the absence of the collective political will."
    That brings me to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). I constantly hear it said, "Is the life of a British soldier worth involvement in Rwanda?" Could we see British forces in Rwanda—or American forces in Bosnia, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, North? There is concern about seeing our national forces involved in a peace-making operation. The consensus seems to be that we need a peace agreement and then we will monitor it. But from much experience of looking at these events around the world, I submit that we need something between chapters 6 and 7 of the United Nations mandate. Those chapters are quite clear, but many situations in the world fall between the two and call for chapter 6.5 or 6.75.
    We must address the problem of how to give the United Nations the means to carry out our collective will because if that collective will does not operate there can be no international law or an international community. There are two options and the Select Committee spent much time looking at the future of the United Nations and how it could be developed. We said that first and foremost there should be a genuine military assessment system at the disposal of the Secretary-General consisting of people who could make active plans of what was needed and where it should come from.
    Secondly, we suggested that every country with well-trained forces—and such countries exist not just in western Europe but throughout the world—should be able to second special units and have them ready and available if the United Nations wanted them quickly. Those of us
    302
    who followed events in Somalia knew that Ambassador Shanoun, who was trying to solve the problems there, said that if he had got the Pakistani forces within weeks instead of months the situation in Somalia would never have deteriorated to the extent that it did.
    It is a question of how to provide the military means for the United Nations to operate. A friend of mine, Congressman Jim Leach, looked at the United Nations in exactly the same way as the Select Committee. Congress came to the conclusion that the United Nations itself should have at its disposal trained soldiers who had committed themselves to international intervention. That is one of the ways forward and it was suggested in the original charter. The Government, the Opposition and all those who are genuinely concerned to see international order have to grasp the nettle and argue the case. Do we have specialist units trained and available, or should the United Nations itself have trained forces?
    Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal and Zimbabwe have all offered their troops to help to solve the problem in Rwanda; but none of those countries has the means to get them there or to equip them to do the job. The French have said, "We are sick of this terrible tragedy of people being slaughtered by machete-wielding militia, and 2,000 good French troops could solve the problem." I suppose that they could, but then we encountered the problem of the Rwandan Patriotic Front saying, "We do not trust the French." Back we go, and in the meantime more children are slaughtered, more die and more innocent people are harmed.
    As part of the overall concept of international order we need to grasp the problem of how to give the United Nations the means for its collective will to be enforced efficiently and properly. That is the principle.
    Dr. Kim Howells: I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's speech because it is so thoughtful and visionary, but what is his view of the lack of a feasible power bloc in Africa? Is one of the vacuums in Rwanda and Somalia due to the fact that there is not the presence that there is in Europe of, for example, NATO?
    Mr. Lester: Of course, and the problem with Africa is simply that it does not have workable regional organisations in any context, whether in trade, aid or working together. Part of its poverty is simply due to the fact that, collectively, it hardly trades within itself. I think that throughout Africa 4 per cent. of countries trade one with another. The same applies to the military.
    Of all continents, Africa has been the victim of the cold war, with different regimes profiting first from the Americans and then the Russians and then from anybody else who would give them money. They had got used to that, and now they have to start all over again and we need to help them. That is the most important point.
    In today's world there are changing needs. In the past 20 years during which I have been in the House the way in which we look at aid and the way in which countries receive it have changed dramatically. There are now institutions such as the Foundation for Democracy and the know-how funds, which have worked particularly well. I should like to make a plug for the local government content, which I was pleased to note my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned. In my experience, throughout the world many people who need the sort of services and support that the hon. Member for Islington, North

    303
    mentioned get them, not from national Governments, but from local organisations and local government. That dimension has just started to come forward.
    The local government international bureau has just published a very good document on global partnership. I commend it to all hon. Members and urge them to get a copy to check whether their local authorities are involved in an international partnership. Thanks to a private Member's Bill for which I was responsible, such partnerships can now be thickened from knowing, talking and exchanging from schools to the actual transfer of technology and knowledge which is of real benefit to the people that they serve. It is done at minimal cost, as cost is not great in terms of know-how, technology and information. I hope that we shall all encourage our own local authorities to show an interest in the international concept of what they can achieve.
    I am also delighted to tell the House that, thanks to the generosity of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who provided some pump-priming money, we now have a Commonwealth local government forum which we designed as a momentum within the Commonwealth to promote throughout the Commonwealth, all speaking the same language, the concept of local government change. It will be based here in London, as is the Commonwealth Secretariat, and its role will be as a posting box to introduce those local authorities throughout the Commonwealth which need help to those who can give it—not specifically from Britain; Canada, Australia, India and many other countries have available expertise.
    I hope that we can concentrate on the big picture, which is international order and where we can give most practical help to people on the ground. I suspect that through local government and know-how we could make a better contribution than we have made so far.
    8.20 pm
    Mr. Tony Worthington: It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), which was characteristically thoughtful. It was a Minister's speech and included a speech on Rwanda that probably should have been made by the Minister.
    Let us consider what has happened today. We have on the Order Paper a motion that mentions the inadequate response of the Government and the world community to Rwanda, and what has the Minister said? He has simply said that we have given aid and logistical support to the military effort. I see from one of the answers I received today that it is 50 trucks. That is Britain's contribution to Rwanda.
    Dr. Kim Howells: It is £500,000.
    Mr. Worthington: My hon. Friend on the Front Bench says that it is £500,000. The Secretary-General of the United Nations described what has happened in Rwanda as a tragedy, as deplorable, as a collapse of the world will and as a total failure. He said that the United Nations had failed. If the United Nations has failed, we have failed. It is not Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali; it is the Government and the House of Commons of Britain and of all the countries that contribute to the United Nations.
    304
    What kind of House and Government do not seek to make a statement when 500,000 people are slaughtered? Here we are today, debating the tragedy in Opposition time, and the Government have made no attempt to make any statement to the House.
    The Minister talked about leadership, about a world position. We are on the Security Council. What kind of leadership do we have when it will not even speak to our House of Commons about the tragedy in Rwanda? What kind of leadership function is that?
    Let us take another example. Recently, there was an unparalleled special emergency meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission to consider the genocide that has occurred in Rwanda. Even the Government use the word; it is admitted as genocide. We considered it so special, such an emergency, that we did not even send a Minister. We sent a civil servant to an emergency meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. How many people have to die before it is worth sending a Minister to show our commitment?
    What lessons have the Government learnt? I respond to what the hon. Member for Broxtowe said. We cannot go on running famines and wars by committees which take weeks and months to meet. That is what happened in Somalia, Angola and Rwanda. It is a no-no. It is no way of dealing with the problem. It plays into the hands of the Milosevics and of the Government of Rwanda. Such people love to see us behaving in that way.
    We also have to consider how the Security Council operates. At the moment, frankly, it looks as if the United Nations is praying for the war to end before the troops get there. The Rwanda Patriotic Front is doing a better job than the United Nations about ending the war and the bloodshed.
    We do not even have human rights monitors there at present. The presence of journalists has probably done as much as the presence of the United Nations to stop deaths. Simply to be there and for those in Rwanda to know that the world is looking stops deaths.
    We must try to rescue something from this. I hope there will be another occasion when we can have a serious debate about the role of the United Nations Security Council. As the hon. Member for Broxtowe was saying, the United Nations should have a rapid reaction force of people from the nations of the world who have volunteered to join that force and owe it their allegiance.
    That will be a difficult operation, but the current difficulty of deciding whether one would be willing to lose a British life in Rwanda would become a different question if those young people had made a commitment to join the United Nations special reaction force. It is the volunteering of a person to do a worthwhile job for the world. There are inadequacies with that, but the position could not be much worse than it is at the moment, and we must try to rescue something.
    I want to talk about three things. I have already mentioned the first, the position in Rwanda, but Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali and others are now talking about preventive diplomacy or how we avoid such tragedies and intervene in a helpful way.
    I want to talk about one particular country and flag up the fact that problems will occur there. I have just been there, and I think that we will be reading about tragedies there in the next year or two unless we act now. That country is Kenya. All the signs are that there will be a

    305
    Government-sponsored civil war there unless we take note of what is happening. I think that Kenya runs the risk of going badly wrong.
    One issue I wish we had talked about tonight—and which the Minister can still rectify—is controversial. The Government are quite right to allocate their aid budget to emphasise good governance. That is fundamentally right. There are exceptions to that, in that humanitarian aid has to go to the people in any circumstances, regardless of the goodness or badness of the Government, but if one is giving development aid, in order to justify it to one's constituents, one should make sure that that money is properly applied in a context that respects human rights. I suspect that it is a highly selective policy. In Indonesia, where there are big markets, I suspect that a blind eye is turned to human rights issues.
    Let us take Kenya as an example. A couple of years ago, the international community said that enough was enough, and stopped aid and co-operation. It worked to a certain extent, in that President Moi was forced into multi-party elections, which were given an okay verdict by the international observers. However, that verdict was like a verdict in a World Boxing Organisation title fight—very dubious. Many aspects of those elections were highly questionable. For example, in the Rift valley, there were 16 unopposed Kenya African National Union MPs, because no one else could place his nomination papers.
    I fear the worst for Kenya because of the gargantuan scale of the corruption and the undermining of the democratic rights of the people. The corruption is on a huge scale. Is there any corruption anywhere to match the scale involved in the Goldenburg scandal? Hundreds of millions of Kenyan shillings were paid to the Goldenburg firm as a reward for doing nothing at all except fill in bogus forms pretending to have exported gold when no gold had left the country.
    It is calculated that the scale of the scam amounted to 20 per cent. of the total value of the Kenyan economy. The corruption extends to the most senior levels of the Kenyan Government. What is so wicked is that, just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, so there is no such thing as a free scam. That scam provoked runaway inflation, and those who are suffering most are the millions of Kenyans who live on a pittance.
    The Kenyan Government were forced to hold an election, but it was a highly dubious one. Many opposition Members in Kenya have spent lengthy periods in Moi's gaols, and they are constantly harassed. They are not allowed to hold meetings in their constituencies without Government approval, which is often not given. About seven opposition Members have defected recently, and there has been no pretence that they have done so for any reason other than that they have been bought by the Kenyan Government. Millions of shillings have been paid to them to join KANU and stand again, and they are then re-elected with the assistance of Government money.
    Kenyan Ministers openly state that no services will be provided in areas that support opposition Members. The courts are not independent. The universities have been on strike for seven months, and any research in a university must have the approval of the President's office.
    Of most concern are the ethnic clashes, of which the most serious are in the Rift valley, where 1,500 people are said to have died and 250,000 have been displaced. There
    306
    seems to be little doubt that Government-organised gangs raid, loot, kill and drive out Kikuyu so that the President's tribe, the Kalenjin, can be dominant and take over the land.
    I went to Mtondia, near Mombasa, where 150 young fighters had turned up by coach, killed eight people, burned the village and displaced the villagers. They then threatened to return on 16 June. The fighters were recognised and could easily have been identified. It should have been an easy job for the police, but there was no interest in doing it. Responsible organisations like Africa Watch and Amnesty International have no doubt that the Government were behind the raid. Even The Economist intelligence unit says:
    "the overwhelming evidence suggests that the incidents have been provoked by the ruling party at the provincial (and sometimes national) level to clear the affected areas of residents who do not belong to the Kalenjin group of tribes."
    The news editor of the Daily Nation newspaper has been charged with subversion simply for saying that he had been told by local people that the fighters to whom I referred had arrived by helicopter at the home of a local Member of Parliament. When I objected to that, President Moi was very annoyed. Is commenting on something that has happened interfering in the affairs of an independent state?
    President Moi will say that it is colonialism and imperialism. However, I think that there are clear British interests. On the question of Rwanda, the British Government have said, "It is not for us. It is Francophone Africa; it is for the Belgians and the French." The Government cannot say that about Kenya, because that country is an important market, and there is a long tradition of British involvement.
    Mr. Lester: Surely the hon. Gentleman shared his views with the British high commissioner in Kenya. I have been long involved with Kenya; indeed, I am chairman of the British-Kenya group in the House. It has always been obvious that, whenever there is a problem in Kenya, the first people the Kenyans want to talk to and want assistance from are the British Government.
    Mr. Worthington: I respect the hon. Gentleman's view. However, in recent times, the British Government have spoken far too softly, and have not used their influence in these matters. We shall see whether the United Nations and the British Government can exercise preventive diplomacy. There is no doubt in anyone's mind about the scale of corruption, about the appalling ethnic clashes or about the fact that those are inspired by the Kenyan Government. I want our Government to tell the Kenyan Government, "This is not on."
    Next month, a meeting at the World bank will consider the relationship with Kenya. It is legitimate for this country, through its influence at the World bank and bilaterally, to say that the level of human rights abuse in Kenya is unacceptable to the world community. I hope that they do that before we go down a slippery slope.
    The other issue I want to raise links with what has already been said—which I fully support—about the international conference on population and development in Cairo in September. We must make a success of that conference.
    It is a fundamental right of the women of this world to choose the size of their families. It is cheap technology. Nothing has altered the lives of women in this country more than access to family planning. It has transformed their lives. In sub-Saharan Africa the population doubles

    307
    every 25 years. The current populations of Britain and Egypt are about the same; the difference is that ours will double in about 260 years, whereas Egypt's will double in about 30 years. If ours were to double that quickly, we might concentrate a little harder on the issue.
    The country with the slowest rate of population doubling is Italy, where it takes 3,466 years. I do not think that anyone in Italy should tell the women of a country in which the population doubles every 25 years that they cannot enjoy the same facilities as the women of Italy. That is a crucial point. Nothing will do more to help development and to end poverty than arming the women in the poorer parts of the world with good reproductive health facilities and primary education. They want that.
    In Sierra Leone, only 4 per cent. of the population have modern family planning services. There was no objection to those services from local Muslims or the Roman Catholic Church; all that was stopping the women was lack of access to them.
    I agree with the chairman of the all-party group on population and development, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), that it is important that the conference in Cairo is successful. There is a coming together of the peoples of the world. The Muslims have altered their views on family planning. It is no longer a rich north world saying to a poor south, "You must not have children." Now, the poor south is saying, "We don't want to have as many children as we did previously. Will you help us with the necessary resources?" I hope that the Cairo conference is a success.
    8.29 pm
    Ms Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to be allowed to participate in this debate because, due to a constituency engagement, I was not present for the opening speeches. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who devoted part of his speech to the plight of women in the developing world. His was only the third mention of our gender in the speeches that I have heard.
    I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the feeling is increasing among many women throughout the developing world that their family sizes are too large. Who could blame them for thinking that, when infant mortality shows no signs of reducing significantly, many young children die of easily preventable diseases and there is virtually no clean water available to millions of people in this, our one world?
    This serious and important issue concerns not just the survival or the development of the third world but the survival of our world in total. We can no longer allow the human poverty, degradation, disease and sheer suffering that we see virtually every night on our television screens. I share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends about the thoughtful nature of the speech of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), and I am sorry that he is not in his place to hear me say so.
    We have heard of the contributions by governmental and non-governmental organisations and individuals in communities, and of the shameful contribution by our own Government in respect of overseas aid and development. If we, as part of the developed world, genuinely mean to eradicate poverty, make sure that people do not go to bed
    308
    hungry, and even selfishly want to ensure that, when the UK develops again and makes products for the rest of the world, there will be an increased market for them—one that does not exist currently because developing countries are not creating their own stable economic structures—we must acknowledge that we shall never solve those problems by working separately, in partial or small territorial groups.
    I strongly agree with those hon. Members who said that the UN can only achieve as much as the nations of the world commit it to do by finance, material or personnel. The problems are often complex. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that population control is immensely important, but it is not the only way to free women from the terrible burdens that shackle them.
    Women make an immense contribution in their own families, societies and communities—but they are rarely if ever empowered to own land or to borrow money. However, they are infinitely capable of transforming the lives not only of their own families and communities but of regions. Those complex issues are intertwined—particularly in respect of women—in a structure that embraces culture, religion and education. At least five separate issues are contingent upon one possible solution working.
    The developed world seems incapable of grasping that there is not one simple solution or even 10, but that there may be 1 million solutions. The co-ordination, bringing together and prioritising of solutions to the dreadful problems that confront the world can only be done by an organisation that all the nations of the world recognise—and one that is in a sense impartial, because it is consistently caring in a particular area. I argue that that organisation is conceivably the United Nations.
    I argue equally that, in future, perhaps we cannot regard the UN as centred solely on New York. We might have to consider a UN for certain regions and areas of the world. None of that will be possible unless the developed nations take on board the fact that ours must be the major and central contribution.
    Sometimes, I feel that the developed world regards the undeveloped world as a problem impossible to solve—that the most we can do will be inadequate, so the least we can do will be sufficient. I find that totally unacceptable. I believe that the majority of people in this country and throughout the world also find it unacceptable. It seems that only Governments tend to hold back. I sincerely hope that this debate will cause the British Government to reconsider the freezing of the UK's overseas aid budget.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: It was with shock and dismay that I learnt recently that hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Overseas Development Administration aid budget had been spent running tax havens in the Caribbean for the benefit of companies and individuals from this and other developed countries so that they may avoid paying tax in Europe and north America.
    This year's Foreign Office departmental report states that the purpose of overseas aid is
    "to help poorer countries and their peoples improve their standard of life."
    In a state of disbelief, I raised the matter with Baroness Chalker. She wrote to me:

    309
    "Britain has a duty to ensure that"
    the offshore financial industry is
    "developed in a responsible manner"—
    and that therefore
    "it would not be sensible to insist that the Territories met the costs …of the UK recruited advisers."
    British aid money is paying for an inspector of offshore banks and trust companies, an insurance services adviser and a principal tax adviser in the British Virgin Islands. It is paying also for a superintendent and deputy superintendent of offshore finance and two further financial advisers in the Turks and Caicos Islands.
    According to a written answer that I received from the Minister earlier this year, the cost of each post, including salary, accommodation and air fares, is approximately £70,000 per annum. That is the average cost of the technical co-operation officers in those two British dependent territories in the Caribbean. Common sense says that the cost of a teacher or health adviser would be rather less than the cost of weaning a financial adviser from the City.
    I do not deny that there have been problems with offshore finance in the Caribbean. There were serious irregularities in the 1980s, when the United States Government complained to the British Government that ill-regulated offshore banks in BDTs in the Caribbean were being used to launder drug money and for other illicit purposes. Members of New Scotland Yard's fraud squad were sent to the Caribbean to investigate. There followed resignations by senior Caribbean politicians, the bringing of criminal charges and convictions.
    Against that background, in 1989 the Government acted by calling in Coopers and Lybrand to examine the situation. The Coopers and Lybrand report recommended, among other things, the appointment of advisers. The advisers face a daunting task. There are just two people in the British Virgin Islands, a bank inspector and an insurance adviser, to regulate the affairs of 110,000 offshore companies registered there. The British Virgin Islands has a population of 16,500, but last year alone, 30,000 new offshore companies were registered there.
    Regulation is certainly needed. However, why should the cost of that fall on the limited and over-stretched British aid budget? If Britain wants to ensure that tax havens in British dependent territories are properly regulated, and if it wants to defend the Bank of England's reputation for probity, the Bank of England or the Department of Trade and Industry should pay for that.
    I believe that the costs should, and certainly could, be borne locally. The British Virgin Islands Government raised £12,660,000 in taxes and charges from their offshore finance industry in 1992–93, but spent only £730,000, including the hand-out from the British aid budget, on regulating that industry. The Turks and Caicos Islands Government raised more than £1.5 million in taxation and charges from offshore finance, but they spent only £200,000 on regulating those offshore companies. The majority of that money came from the British aid budget.
    Those territories could well afford to pay to regulate their offshore financial industries. It is not that tax levels are already punitive in the dependent territories. In the British Virgin Islands, income tax ranges from 3 per cent. to a top rate of 20 per cent. Company tax is 15 per cent. on chargeable income and offshore companies are largely
    310
    exempt from taxation. In the Turks and Caicos Islands, there is no capital gains tax, no income tax and no corporation tax.
    It is nothing short of a scandal that hard-pressed British taxpayers, many of whom are on low incomes and who are paying a greater proportion of their income in taxes now than they paid in 1979 under the previous Labour Government, are subsidising a lavish, low-tax lifestyle for Caribbean professionals who work in the offshore finance industry. Their tax contribution to the British aid budget is enabling rich Britons to avoid paying taxes in this country, secure in the knowledge that they have found a safe and well-regulated tax haven abroad.
    I recognise that there are dangers in comparing tax rates in developed and under-developed countries. However, the British dependent territories are not poor, third-world countries. The Cayman Islands has a per capita gross domestic product of $20,000. That is higher than that of the United Kingdom, which is $15,800, and it is substantially higher than the GDP per capita in the north of England and in Wales. It pays for regulating its own offshore finance industry, but even so the Cayman Islands, with a higher average income for its population than we enjoy in this country, received £119,000 last year in UK aid.
    The British Virgin Islands, as I have said, received substantial aid for running its tax havens. Its per capita GDP is $10,479 which is higher than that in some European Union member states. The British Virgin Islands received £1.2 million in aid from the British overseas aid budget, which works out at £74 per person. I have no doubt that some of that money trickles down to the poor. However, the well-paid local lawyers and bankers who work in the offshore finance industry in the British Virgin Islands do not need a tax handout from the people in this country on lower incomes and higher rates of tax.
    I am wholly in favour of overseas aid for other Caribbean Commonwealth countries which have a greater need of aid. St. Vincent has a gross domestic product of $3,647, which is about one third of that of the British Virgin Islands, and it receives £9 per person in aid. Jamaica has an even lower per capita GDP, but it receives £2 per head.
    This year's Foreign Office annual report promises to target aid
    "on the poorest countries where the problems of development go deepest."
    The report also states:
    "all of our priority objectives are therefore concerned with poverty reduction."
    In her letter to me, Baroness Chalker said that aid for Caribbean tax havens
    "does not mean giving any less priority to the poorest."
    She then quoted the figures to which the Minister referred at the beginning of the debate. She said that India receives £90 million a year in aid, Bangladesh receives £50 million and Zimbabwe and Zambia each receive £40 million.
    However, the Department's own publication, "British Overseas Aid Statistics", tells a different story. On a per person basis, Zambia receives £5 in aid. It has a per capita GDP not of tens of thousands of dollars, but of $744. Zimbabwe receives £4 a head. Bangladesh, which has a per capita GDP of $872, receives 40p per person in aid. India, with a per capita GDP of just over $1,000, receives lop per person in aid. However, the British Virgin Islands, with a per capita GDP 10 times greater than that of those states, receives £74 per person per year in aid.

    311
    Where is the justice in that? It directly conflicts with the Minister's stated policy of providing aid to poor countries and to poor people in poor countries. In her letter to me, Baroness Chalker stated:
    "80 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to the poorest developing countries—a higher proportion than any other major donor."
    To whom does that aid go? It does not go to the poor. The PIMS system, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) referred earlier, which is the new performance monitoring system in the ODA, reveals that only 10 per cent. of the overseas aid budget is spent on poverty reduction.
    Is the ODA serious about its statements in the Foreign Office annual report about targeting aid on the poorest? The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) said that he was confused because 80 per cent. of the British bilateral aid budget was going to the poorest countries, but only 6.6 per cent., according to the UN development programme which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), goes to meeting basic human needs. It is possible to reconcile the two. The money is going to the poorest countries, but it is not going for basic human development in the poorest countries. It is not going to the poor in the poorest countries.
    People have been saying for a long time that it is right that aid should be directed at long-term development projects that are run for, and, wherever possible, by, the poorest people in the poorest countries. That principle underpinned Labour's White Paper entitled "More Help for the Poorest" as long ago as 1975. That principle was quietly dropped in 1979 when the Conservatives came to office, but I congratulate them on reinstating it in 1990.
    The rhetoric has changed, but when will the reality of our aid programme change? If there was a need to refocus aid on the poorest in the 1970s, when the aid budget was growing in real terms and as a percentage of our national GDP, there is more need now when the aid budget is contracting.
    I asked the Library to tell me, at constant prices, what had happened to the British bilateral aid budget since 1979. In 1979, it was £1.6 billion. It is now down to £1 billion, and it is set to fall further. The independent group on British aid, which draws together aid specialists from several development agencies, which hon. Members have praised fulsomely, predicts that that budget will shrink to £900 million by 1996. The technical co-operation element of the aid programme, which is what pays for the tax regulators in the Caribbean, absorbed a third of bilateral aid in 1982. It has risen to half now, from £394 million to £520 million in 1992 prices.
    Transferring know-how can be an extremely effective way of improving the living standards of poor people in poor countries, and I welcome that when that is what happens. I have seen largely small-scale development projects in local communities transferring know-how from the United Kingdom to aid their development, but it can also end up enhancing the living standards of third-world elites. Hon. Members have talked about the high incomes and incredible wealth of some people in developing countries.
    In its annual report, the Foreign Office says that, in future, technical assistance will be the only aid, in normal circumstances, given to middle-income countries. That
    312
    suggests that we need a much tighter definition of technical assistance—for example, which projects in middle-income and low-income countries and which technical assistance projects will be supported and which should be avoided in order to ensure that aid reaches those who need it most.
    There are good moral reasons for giving aid, and I have focused on them because of what I believe is the shocking immorality of spending aid on running tax havens for the wealthy from the developed world. There are the economic reasons which the Brandt report considered, and there are strategic reasons which are exercising people's attention, particularly now, after the cold war, as people consider where future security risks might come from—for example, from eastern Europe, where there is a danger of economic stagnation and migration to the west and of economic collapse, which will add fuel to the fire of extreme right-wingers when they take over. There is a need for aid, and aid has been given.
    There is fear of a deterioration in relationships with the Islamic world, but aid is being given to many Islamic countries in the middle east, to the Yemen, to the west bank, to non-oil producing regions of the middle east, to north Africa, to Algeria, to Egypt, to Tunisia, to Morocco, and to the Muslim countries of west Africa.
    People talk about the fear that the twin pressures of population and poverty will force an exodus from black Africa to the north which will threaten our security in Europe. There are two possible responses. There is the fortress Europe response: instead of guarding an east-west frontier, our troops and NATO should line up from Athens to Gibraltar and defend Europe from Africa. There is an alternative approach, which I describe as enlightened self-interest: we use our aid to tackle the problems of poverty, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, so that we reduce those pressures upon Europe.
    Do not the Government realise that, when they misuse aid to run tax havens in the Caribbean, they run the risk of undermining the credibility of the whole aid programme with the British people? People in the United Kingdom generally are generous hearted. They understand—some even sympathise—when they pay their taxes that they are providing aid to help the poor, but they do not sympathise with aid to help bankers and tax exiles. The giving of aid for that purpose in the Caribbean will be regarded by the public as the Conservatives misusing public money to help their supporters. It is a scandal, when bilateral aid has been cut, that any of it should be squandered on creating tax breaks. That money—I hope that the Minister will respond to this point—should be switched immediately to provide aid to poor people in poor countries.
    9.4 pm
    Dr. Kim Howells: Throughout this debate, right hon. and hon. Members have identified a whole host of desperate humanitarian problems which fall within the broad spectrum of aid and development. Some, such as Rwanda, lie close to the political end of that spectrum; others, such as debt relief and trading agreements, reflect the sort of debate that the allies conducted 50 years ago as they tackled the problem of reconstructing Europe in the aftermath of the second world war. Perhaps I could begin by drawing the parallel out a little further and suggesting that we could learn a great deal

    313
    from the discussions which took place 50 years ago at Bretton Woods, and those which followed in London and New York.
    We should recall—and recall quickly—that for the best part of the past 50 years, we employed massive resources, including many of our bravest and most talented men and women, such as scientists, engineers, intelligence staff and the armed forces, and huge amounts of precious public finance in the name of defending liberty and democracy against a Soviet threat. It was an extraordinary mobilisation. Surely it is now time to transmute a small part of that commitment and ingenuity into a new crusade —trying to prevent future Rwandas or, at the very least, to ensure that once such catastrophes begin there can exist among the potential victims at least some hope of rescue or relief.
    As hon. Members on both sides of the House have made clear, Rwanda is by no means the only horror story unfolding in the world. Terrible wars continue in Angola and Sudan, and scarcely less cruel conflicts rage from Bosnia and the trans-Caucasus through Afghanistan to East Timor. In countries brought to their knees by recent wars, such as Ethiopia, Cambodia and Mozambique, famine and the curses of land mines and smashed infrastructure continue to threaten the revival of civil society and sustainable economies. Indeed, right now, a combination of unreliable weather, extreme poverty and chronic malnutrition hold literally millions of Ethiopians in the shadow of impending starvation.
    The terrible civil war against the dictator Mengistu is over and Ethiopia is at peace. As Andrew Timson of the Save the Children Fund points out, however, Ethiopia is getting minimal rewards for doing what the international community wants it to do—liberalising its economy and introducing, however imperfectly, multi-party democracy. The crisis in Ethiopia is acute, and the world must address it if we are to avoid falling back once again on the efforts of charities attempting heroically but often too late to stem the flow of innocent life into the dirt of sub-Saharan Africa.
    It is our duty to find a means of breaking the desperate circle of war, poverty and famine. We do not lack the means or the capacity to do it. The incentive, besides common human decency, is the prospect of creating new and more prosperous trading partners. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have confirmed that this country has a great reservoir of talent with huge experience and professionalism in helping developing countries and delivering aid and disaster relief. They and their colleagues in the British armed forces enjoy a world-wide reputation for the high quality of their performance and achievements.
    We in this Chamber must try to assist them as they address the questions of how best to devise a means of heading off disasters in the first place, how to judge where best to deploy peacekeeping troops and equipment, how to shift food and supplies into the most needy areas and, infinitely more importantly—as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) reminded us—how best to encourage and help sub-Saharan Africa and the poorer countries of Asia and Latin America to produce and trade their way into a more prosperous 21st century. Their economic salvation lies primarily in their ability to feed, house, clothe and educate their populations, and to produce tradeable goods and commodities. However, many of those countries are hauling themselves through the painful trials of structural adjustment programmes which, in the short
    314
    term at least, are causing enhanced levels of unemployment and hardship among populations already hard hit by decades of poverty and inflation. What those countries do not need is another 10 years or so of having to bear the additional burden of monumental debt repayments. To those ends, we must make further progress in tackling the problems of the debt trap, especially in Africa.
    All of us welcome the writing off by Britain of £1.1 billion worth of debt. We welcome the initiative taken by the British Government on the issue at the G7 summit in Tokyo last July. However, those are limited measures and we urge the British Government to persuade the G7 countries and other member states of the European Union to extend the work that they have begun on bilateral debt arrangements in order to deal with the debt of countries such as Uganda to multilateral institutions. Her Majesty's Treasury and the World bank still insist that such debt cannot be considered for rescheduling or cancellation.
    Clearly, it is farce shading rapidly into tragedy to force countries such as Uganda to seek fresh bilateral loans in order to pay off the interest on their multilateral loans. One of the most important and immediate adjustments in that respect would be for the World bank and the International Monetary Fund to modify their constitutions so that debt cancellation could become a real consideration.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: The points that my hon. Friend makes are extremely important. Is it not also true that as a result of the pressure of debt some countries are forced to take decisions which are environmentally unsuitable to them and may have implications for countries in other parts of the world? They may be forced to take that line simply because they need the economic benefits.
    Dr. Howells: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right. I remember that he and I examined the problem in the Environment Select Committee. We saw that countries desperate to earn foreign revenue were willing, for example, to take industrial waste that no one else was prepared to touch, and unscrupulous companies in Europe and America were prepared to dump such waste on them. It is important that we understand how developing countries have to degrade themselves environmentally and socially simply to gain foreign currency.
    It is encouraging that the World bank acknowledged recently that it must take more radical action on the debt crisis simply because sub-Saharan Africa could not sustain its current levels of debt servicing. The debt arrears of those countries have risen from £12.8 billion in 1987 to almost £40 billion now. In 1992, for example, the developing countries repaid £100 billion in interest on their debts. That was more than twice the amounts that they received in aid. Between 1988 and 1992, the OECD countries cancelled £6.6 billion of debt. Those cancellations were very welcome, but those same countries received £318 billion in debt repayment—48 times as much.
    The Government must build on their small but welcome beginnings on debt relief and urge their partners in the G7 and the European Union to address the problem with much more resolve and urgency. That point was made time and again during the debate on the subject last week in another place. Many noble Lords expressed concern about debt, as they did about the detrimental effects that the arms trade and excessive military expenditure have had on the ability of developing countries to escape the debt and poverty trap.

    315
    For example, Lord Desai warned against perpetuating the notion that poverty in the so-called third world was all the fault of the first world and that the third world was a helpless victim. That is not true. A recent United Nations Development Programme report, which Lord Desai helped to draft, criticises equally the Governments of countries which, despite the grinding poverty suffered by most of their populations, find money to spend on armaments when it should be spent on education and health. Lord Desai cited the cases of India and Pakistan, where the money spent on Migs and Mirage jets could have been spent on education, population control and the provision of clean water.
    Baroness Chalker acknowledged that excessive military spending can create political and military insecurity and damage development by pre-empting scarce resources. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) reminded us of the terrible consequences of that hard-sell, unregulated trade in arms, and of the trade in land mines. Yet the Department of Trade and Industry's provision of export credits for arms sales continues to rise, at the same time as aid is set to decline in real money terms. That mismatch urgently needs tackling. The most effective way to meet Britain's security objectives is not to arm and train regimes in the third world, but to guarantee international peace and tackle the underlying poverty.
    There is a similar mismatch between the rhetoric of donor countries such as ours and our record on trade in general. There has been a welcome, wide-ranging and democratic demand in donor countries for greater accountability when it comes to judging the value for money and quality of funds allocated to aid and development projects. The World bank has demanded greater transparency to allow us to understand the effectiveness of public money spent in that way. Those demands formed part of a series of radical changes in the way in which the World bank disburses loans and grants and the context within which it expects them to be used. I support those changes and see no virtue in handing over funds for which there will be no accountability. It is extremely important that we stress that accountability.
    Structural adjustment programmes in the third world have often entailed forcing recipient Governments to open up their markets to world trade and to deregulate considerable areas of administration. It is a miserable fact to have to record, therefore, that donor countries do not necessarily practise in their own countries and within their own trading alliances what they preach abroad.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) pointed out, in the European Union we operate protectionist policies in the form of a barrage of restrictions against third-world producers. At the same time, third-world farmers have to compete locally with imports from Europe, such as beef and sugar, which are heavily subsidised by the common agricultural policy.
    The manufacture of clothes and textiles has been identified as one of the few industrial sectors in which poor countries have an opportunity to compete with the rich. Despite the planned 10-year phase-out of the multi-fibre arrangement under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, however, the European Union continues to use that tariff system to limit the opportunities for poor countries to compete. The World Development Movement has
    316
    calculated that, as a result, third-world producers have been denied up to $35 billion a year—as much as all the western aid put together.

    Agricultural producers also suffer from the continuing vast subsidies paid to American and Japanese farmers, in direct contradiction to their rhetoric about the necessity to extend free trade.
    The new democracies of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are already demanding that the European Union—the largest and most powerful trading bloc in the world—should open its doors to produce from the east. The Ukraine, once one of the grain-producing centres of the world, finds itself importing subsidised grain from the west and is already reminding us that if we are serious about encouraging the implementation of liberal democracies in that region we had better understand that we cannot buy it with money from the know-how fund, welcome though some of that may be to the eastern Europeans. We must open our agricultural markets to those countries and we had better decide now that it would be better for the Ukrainians and the British alike if the Ukrainians are able to tend their own fields and gardens rather than having to come here as economic refugees seeking our money to tend our gardens for us.
    There is every possibility of progress if this country has the will to force through the required changes by making huge savings—savings which are wholly beneficial to all sides—and to begin seriously the work of reducing the crazy levels of expenditure on the common agricultural policy and its Japanese and American equivalents, which are costing European Union member states vast amounts in precious public funds and costing third-world farmers their livelihoods. I do not mind the taunts that we heard earlier from Conservative Members, who for 15 years have allowed that outrageous farce to continue at a cost of tens of billions of pounds to British taxpayers. If the Government want advice about the location of funds to aid the world's poorest people to move towards the UN target figure for contributions, let them look to their semi-detached relationship with the European Union and their failure to intervene to force down those outrageous subsidies.
    On the question of European expenditure, will the Minister clarify the Government's position on certain trends which are beginning to manifest themselves in the way in which multilateral aid organisations and, in particular, the European Union are implementing that aid? Much as we may agree with the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester)—I certainly join him—in welcoming the activities of multilateral agencies and especially the co-ordinating role that they play in the distribution and allocation of funds for aid and development, we must be careful to ensure that the considerable allocation of funds from this country can be properly tracked through Brussels and the Commission.
    The ODA estimates show significant trends away from the disposal of funds through bilateral channels and into new channels, some of which are rather more opaque in terms of public accountability than some of the bilateral channels. The World bank's annual world development report shows that about £132 billion per year of infrastructure investment in developing countries has greatly increased access to electricity, sanitation, paved roads, telephones and water, but points out that gross

    317
    inefficiencies and poor maintenance of those investments have meant that money has been wasted and services have been patchy.
    The president of the World bank, Lewis Preston, declared that the emphasis everywhere must be less on cutting ribbons to open new facilities and more on ensuring that those facilities deliver the intended services. The World bank stresses—as hon. Members have stressed today—the importance of involving local people, which is vital. The bank's study of 121 rural water supply projects shows that in Asia, Africa and Latin America, in those projects where participation by the local population was classified as high, 83 per cent. had good maintenance levels and 81 per cent were graded as effective in achieving their goals. Of those where participation was low, 23 per cent. had good maintenance levels and only 8 per cent. were graded as effective.
    While non-governmental organisations applauded the World bank's call for more emphasis on maintenance and greater user participation, they said that the bank itself was a part of the problem:
    "What proportion of Bank infrastructure lending goes to maintenance? There is no figure in the report,"
    said Paul Spray, head of policy at London-based Christian Aid.
    Returning to the issue of accountability, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) pointed out, in 1993–94 an estimated 45 per cent. of the ODA' s expenditure went on multilateral projects by organisations such as the European Commission, and for 1996–97 that estimate is set to rise well above 52 per cent. We are told that the main reasons for this shift are the pledges made at the 1992 Edinburgh European Council, and that the planned allocation of the European Union's aid budget is set to rise from the current figure of around £300 million to almost £750 million by 1996–97. Can the Minister confirm whether our contribution to the European development fund is set to increase by more than 12 per cent. between now and 1996–97 and that under the terms of the Edinburgh agreement the expenditures are legally binding until 1999? That will mean only one thing—that the share of aid allocated to the poorest recipients will shrink.
    I am afraid that the figures contradict the claims made by the Minister, the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), that the Government are successfully targeting the very poorest in the world. If they are doing so at the moment, it will not continue. The statistics cannot be welcome news to anyone concerned with aid and development. No one will argue against helping the eastern Europeans and the new democracies of the former Soviet Union and I have argued that it is vital that we do, but there must be no question of a compensatory reduction in our aid programme to the poorest countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
    The growing refugee problem in those areas is already an enormous drain on the resources of bilateral and multilateral agencies alike. All the briefings that we receive from the United Nations agencies, Oxfam, Actionaid, Save the Children, One World Action and all the other NGOs warn that the world's refugee population has grown substantially. From Bosnia on our doorstep to Afghanistan and Zaire, it is possible that as many as 42 million people worldwide have been displaced by wars and other catastrophes. How much longer will we be prepared to bear
    318
    witness to their suffering? How much longer will we expect the relief agencies time and again to find the money to ease their pain and hardship?
    I welcome the pleas issued by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who stressed the case for greater availability of family planning resources. As they both said, the population of sub-Saharan Africa is doubling every 25 years, and many of those people are in refugee camps. There are 12 million more mouths to feed in Ethiopia than there were just 10 years ago. Surely it is time that we began to concentrate on that dilemma some of the energy, talent and ingenuity—and some of the resources—that for half a century we concentrated on the business of defending liberty and democracy during the years of the cold war. This is as good a time as any to begin that concentration. It is 50 years since D-day intensified the struggle for the liberation of Europe from the chains of fascism, and 50 years since the Bretton Woods agreements which helped to underpin the reconstruction of an entire continent.
    In the year when democracy returned to South Africa and Malawi, let us not miss the opportunity to help South Africa to transform the whole southern half of the continent. This is one of the great opportunities in history. We are very lucky to have not only Nelson Mandela but an extraordinary figure in de Klerk. There have been many moments in history when we could have done with people of their calibre; now that we have them it is vital not to regard South Africa as a former trouble spot that we can now safely forget. If we help to make South Africa a success, we shall help to make the entire southern half of that continent a success.
    Let us not throw away the opportunity to begin a new crusade against an enemy every bit as insidious and destructive as fascism. The chronic poverty and deprivation of so much of the underdeveloped world are a slur on the name of civilisation. The impotence and disarray of the United Nations Security Council are a negation of the spirit of hope and regeneration which established that organisation after the desperate years of the second world war. The murder of half a million Rwandans—after the murders of so many innocents in Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Sudan, Liberia, East Timor and a score of other places—leaves a stain on the hands of every one of us.
    These are political problems which require political solutions. If we believe that our global agencies and international organisations are not up to the task of developing those solutions, as was argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and the hon. Member for Broxtowe, we must modify and reconstruct them—as the generation that defeated fascism constructed the UN in 1945. We may not succeed in every instance in alleviating debt burdens, encouraging production and opening up trade, heading off wars and denying famine and disease their terrible harvests of human life, but we shall be seen to be trying—to be caring, as we should care for each other on this fragile planet. If we care, and if sometimes we succeed in our great endeavours, we shall bring hope where now there is no hope—and there can be no greater achievement than that.
    9.28 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): This has been an interesting and extensive debate, with many informed contributions. I shall try to answer them all as well as I can. I normally give way quite a few times, but so many hon. Members have spoken tonight that I do not know how often I shall be able to do so.
    There has been talk of the need for a White Paper: the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) mentioned it. I shall say more on the subject later, but let me say now that I do not believe that there is another Department of State in Whitehall that is so open with the information that it gives. I should know: I sign all the questions to which right hon. and hon. Members receive answers in this House, and I can only say that the answers are as long as the questions are numerous. I shall give further information to all hon. Members by letter if I do not manage to answer their comments.
    The argument advanced by the Labour party was coloured by two characteristics. First, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who opened the debate, and many of his colleagues sought to occupy the moral high ground. Labour Members always want to be up there doing good, but do not demean themselves by suggesting how they will pay for their promises. They think that the accountants and money men will find the money for them to pay for their promises. I must inform them that all those guys occupy a building in Whitehall called Her Majesty's Treasury. The Opposition enjoy the lack of responsibility and the luxury of not being in power. For the sake of our great country, I hope that they continue to enjoy their extravagant fantasies for many years to come from the comfort of the Opposition Benches.
    Dr. Godman: The Minister wants a one-party state.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall not comment on the outrageous and foolish suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, who normally speaks better than that.
    Mr. Worthington: The Minister said that our policies were theoretical. If the Government have been so successful, why has the proportion of aid fallen from 0.51 per cent. to 0.28 per cent., and why has the rate of growth been slower than under any Government since the war? Why have the Government been unable to match the achievements of the former Labour Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman will have to be patient. I intend to deal with the arguments in greater detail later and will pick up his point then.
    The second characteristic of Opposition Members' contributions, particularly that of the hon. Member for Monklands, West, whom I respect, is that they have picked up the arguments in the papers which the World Development Movement has issued to all of us. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) had the temerity to repeat the information that he found on the first page of the World Development Movement's press release, which said that opinion polls show that everyone in Britain wants more aid expenditure. But paragraph 4 on the second page gives other statistics. It says that 33 per cent. of people wish to continue to give the current proportion of our national wealth as aid and 33 per cent. want to decrease
    320
    the proportion. So two thirds of people think that we should either continue to give the same or give less than in the past.
    So I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central and those who wrote the World Development Movement report that we know what it is all about—lies, damned lies and statistics. It makes no sense at all. In his opening contribution, the hon. Member for Monklands, West gave advance warning of what he was going to say by referring to the arguments of the World Development Movement —the same comments and criticisms—about what we are doing.
    The World Development Movement is a lobby. I accept that it has a cause, but a lobby with a cause is a lobby none the less. The hon. Gentleman should not listen so extensively to organisations like the World Development Movement, but should seek information in many of the areas of his concern from the Overseas Development Administration, or, if he prefers, table questions to me, which I shall answer.
    I shall make a few general comments. Our aid programme is a high-quality, successful programme. That is not simply my opinion, although I am happy to adopt it. The OECD's Development Assistance Committee completed a review of the British aid programme earlier this year. It said:
    "The United Kingdom has a highly concessional, well organised bilateral programme based on substantial national expertise and largely oriented towards the poorest developing countries."
    We have heard an awful lot about how we do not help the poorest developing countries. That is not the view of the independent critics in the OECD.
    We make extremely good use of taxpayers' money. Far from being a misuse of funds, the aid programme is effective because it is so well targeted. It is well targeted on where we spend our aid—the poorest countries in Africa and Asia. Eighty per cent. of our bilateral aid is targeted on the poorest countries. It is well targeted on clearly defined objectives, set out clearly in the speech of my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development at Chatham house last year.
    Our aim is one which everyone in the House will agree as an ultimate objective—long-term sustainable development. Along with the lead we have taken on debt relief and on pushing for freer trade, that helps stability and contributes to the global economy. That is in Britain's interests and the interests of the countries that receive our aid.
    I shall give a snapshot of some of the objectives that we support, including economic liberalisation—sound economic policies in other words—which encourage investment and give incentives to produce. We promote the productive capacity of developing countries. We improve management skills in developing countries. We encourage thereby more effective public expenditure programmes in those countries. We promote good government—an objective which hon. Members from both sides of the House of course endorse. We promote good government, to improve legitimacy and accountability, and promote the democratic process and respect for human rights. We are increasingly directing and focusing our programme on the direct reduction of poverty.
    Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: One moment.

    321
    We promote human development, including better education and health and access to family planning services. We help poorer countries tackle environmental problems, which were said by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to be a cause for great concern, with which I agree.
    Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: One moment.
    We provide speedy and effective humanitarian assistance. All those objectives strike me as extremely good uses of British taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister has set out a marvellous range of objectives, with which none of us would disagree. The problem is that it is all rhetoric and no delivery. It is no use saying that he promotes good government and stability when he knows perfectly well that in Angola the actions of the British Government are leading to worse government, leading to tremendous humanitarian problems, and indeed, siding with people who do not accept the pluralistic electoral policy that he and his friends supported and indeed brokered.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry that I gave way. If I had not given way, I would have had more time to develop my speech and to give the detail which supports the assertions that I have just made.
    I return to the argument of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale that a White Paper was needed. Let me tell the House how we disseminate our information—I say it with some feeling because I am responsible for clearing it before it comes to the House of Commons. My noble Friend the Minister set out our aid strategy clearly in her speech at Chatham house last October—one of about 50 speeches she makes a year about aid. We publish annual departmental reports to Parliament, an annual review of the programme, an annual statistical review of the programme and a range of other booklets about specific aspects. Earlier this month, we launched new strategies on forestry and biodiversity. We are about to do the same on population strategy. [Interruption.] I am answering the right hon. Gentleman's request for a White Paper. It belittles the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) to interrupt in that way.
    We have done a great deal to improve the flow of information. We have agreed, for instance, that the forthcoming review of the United Kingdom's aid programme by the OECD's Development Assistance Committee should be the first such report to be published in full. It will compare information on the performance of our programmes against our objectives.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who said that we are publishing more information about the aid programme than ever before, in an attempt to make it more transparent and to make a genuine contribution to the debate on development aid issues. I can see no case in those circumstances for a White Paper on aid and related matters.
    Mr. Tom Clarke rose—
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene once I have commented on what he had to say. I need to make a great deal of progress if I am to get through my speech, and I shall not be able to give way much more.
    322
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West and several other Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), made much of the Trinidad terms. Certainly, the original Trinidad proposals were for a two thirds reduction for countries with a track record of economic reform—but we cannot move unilaterally to that target from 50 per cent. We must do so multilaterally, and we are pressing other creditors to agree to the full Trinidad terms. We must do this in conjunction with others if we are to be effective.
    As for multilateral debt, both the IMF and the World bank say that full repayment of debt allows them to continue lending even when other lenders withdraw. The World bank argues that cancelling or rescheduling debt could make it more expensive for the bank to raise money on the world's money markets—money with which to help developing countries.
    It is therefore not a question of any stubbornness on our part. Our views are based on what the institutions themselves want. It is most ungenerous of Opposition Members to give no credit to the Prime Minister, who initiated that whole process which is doing so much to help the developing world.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister has accused my party of seeking to occupy the high moral ground. I plead guilty: I would not accuse him of that. Why does he believe that the World Development Movement is so far wrong? It enjoys a great deal more support than the Conservative party received in the recent European elections. The Minister sees fit to lecture us about the fig leaf of the Trinidad terms, so will he say why the Government will not explain, in a White Paper, the immorality of spending £300 million on the Pergau dam project, which stinks?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot answer that gibe, save to say that I do not take too seriously a movement that does not even bother to check its own arithmetic.
    I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe about debt relief. Of course, we should like better terms to be offered, but, as he recognises, that must be done multilaterally. He is right to stress the need for countries to support the efforts of the United Nations, thereby displaying our collective international will. We should never forget that we are the fourth-largest contributor of troops to UN peacekeeping operations.
    The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)) said that developing countries pay out more than they receive. That is not true. OECD figures show that in 1991 developing countries received £31.4 billion more than they paid out. That is a fact, and I place it on the record.
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West spoke about poverty focus and it was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) who, I am sorry to say, is not in her place. It was said that 6.6 per cent. of bilateral aid was spent on human priorities, but that is wrong. The figure for expenditure in 1992 on basic needs was 10 per cent. of bilateral aid, and we are better than the average of all donors in that area.
    On the monitoring of poverty, all our aid to the poorest countries is focused on the reduction of poverty. We have set seven priority objectives for the aid programme and they all contribute to sustainable development. We now have a computer-based system for measuring performance against those objectives and we have already made public information from that exercise. We shall publish more

    323
    information later this year. Again I say that we are publishing more information about our aid programme than has ever been published before.
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West asked a specific question to which he wanted a specific answer about the 11th replenishment of the International Development Association. Negotiations on IDA 11 start at the beginning of next year. Decisions on our contribution will be taken in the light of those negotiations. We have been major contributors to IDA and gave £620 million in the period 1993–96.
    The subject of Rwanda was considerably developed by the hon. Member for Monklands, West and mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva). It was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who is normally fair and whose constituency I think I pronounced rather more correctly then his Welsh colleague, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).
    Mr. Worthington: The Minister has still got it wrong.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman grossly underestimates our contribution to assistance in Rwanda. The 50 trucks that he dismissed so contemptuously are precisely what the Secretary-General asked us to supply, but, of course, we have given £11 million worth of aid for Rwanda and for related situations. My right hon. Friend the Minister dealt with the political aspect at some length, so I shall say only that we were in the forefront in the Security Council in efforts to get an expanded UNAMIR.
    As I have said, we have given £11 million worth of aid. We gave £1 million to establish an air bridge into northern Tanzania, £8 million to support NGO operations, which I will not list, and £2 million for strategic planning and management, including health, to the UNHCR and to the United Nations department of humanitarian affairs.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman made a long contribution and I must get on with my speech. [Interruption.] I shall give way on this occasion, but I shall not do so again.
    Mr. Clarke: We are on a serious issue and some of the Minister's earlier answers were rather flippant. Earlier in the debate the House addressed the important issue of Rwanda. Have the Government responded to the French initiative? If they have, have they borne in mind the sensitivities of Africans, including the people of Rwanda?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman mentions the disagreements in the aid lobbies about the French initiative. He said that he did not support it and I know that some of the aid lobbies and the NGOs do not support it either. By touching on that he shows the great complexity and difficulty of some of the circumstances—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question and he must let me answer it in my way. He owes me that courtesy and he should not interrupt. The hon. Gentleman illustrates the great difficulties. The answer to his question is that we support the French initiative, but I will not go into it tonight because it was not raised in the debate.
    We made a rapid response. When the refugee exodus from Rwanda began at the beginning of May, the ODA
    324
    went into immediate action. Within 36 hours we had equipment on the ground in Mwanza to establish the air bridge to which I referred, to enable relief supplies to be unloaded from aircraft and transported by road to refugee camps and to keep the runways open with night repair work. The NGO requests were approved within 24 hours.
    I must say a word about South Africa because it is such an important development for the whole continent and has deep implications for our aid programme. There is no doubt that South Africa's external financing needs will be met primarily by enhanced export opportunities, by the international financial institutions and, very importantly, by direct private investment. That is why the political stability of South Africa is so very important.
    Bilateral donors can best help by providing know-how in targeted areas, as described by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. That is why £100 million, which is a substantial commitment, has been made available over the next three years by the ODA and my right hon. Friend. Of this, some £60 million will be provided through our already well-established bilateral country programme, but the Commonwealth Development Corporation has also been authorised to invest in South Africa and I am sure will make an important contribution to wealth creation in the private sector.
    I want to say a word about land mines. I shall touch on all the important issues. All weapons are abhorrent, particularly when used indiscriminately. In the case of land mines, the problem must be their indiscriminate use against civilian populations. The Government are deeply concerned about the effect of the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines on civilians. Therefore, Britain supported the resolution in the United Nations General Assembly last year which demanded a moratorium on the export of anti-personnel land mines, which pose a great danger to civilian populations.
    The United Kingdom has not produced or exported conventional anti-personnel land mines since 1982. I hope that that clear statement can put to rest so much of the ill-informed comment on the subject.
    Mr. Lester: On the subject of land mines, it is good that my hon. Friend has reinforced the point that Britain does not produce them. Those of us who have seen Cambodia, Angola and other parts of the world where land mines have been laid know that not a single one is from Britain. However, we spend thousands of pounds picking up those that others have put down.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am happy to endorse, but I cannot give further details tonight, the enormous amount that we do for de-mining in our aid programme all over the world.
    Let me touch upon another point that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale made about corruption, which is a major problem. We actively support action against it as part of our good government policy and we support the overall objectives of Transparency International to which he referred. We have said that we are prepared to consider financing projects that it may put forward.
    May I say a quick word to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who mentioned the Crown Agents? I certainly recognise the valuable role of the Crown Agents in our aid programme and, indeed, in relation to the aid programmes of others, notably Japan. That is a example where the Crown Agents

    325
    are helping others while helping themselves and Britain. I am pleased to see that the recent honours lists recognised the bravery of the Crown Agents staff in Bosnia.
    I should say something to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). Of course, I agree with him entirely about the valuable role of NGOs and their ability to work with the poorest. If I may disagree with him on one point, he was wrong to say that we channel through our NGOs no more than modest amounts. It was a large sum of money which doubled in just three years from £65 million in 1989–90 to £147 million in 1992–93. He mentioned EC expenditure and the need for proper scrutiny of what is an ever-increasing part of our aid budget. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I wish that I had the time to say more about the issue tonight.
    I invite my right hon. Friend to volunteer for European Standing Committee B, which is the forum in which these subjects can be properly debated. The hon. Member for Pontypridd should attend, too. It is where proper, detailed scrutiny should take place. I would say more about bilateral and multilateral aid if I had more time, but have not.
    I must tell the hon. Member for Pontypridd that we are committed to a reform of the common agricultural policy which will cut prices. To the extent that that reduces European Union food exports and increases imports, world prices will rise. That will be good for the developing countries.
    The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) referred to structural adjustment. It is important that we encourage correct policies in developing countries. The considerable development successes over the past three decades—especially, but not solely, in Asia—show the importance of the right policies to encourage wealth creation. Our policies of freer trade, debt relief and well-targeted aid help to provide the framework to allow developing countries to prosper.
    I do not have the time to deal with the population question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), which was also touched upon by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). I wish my hon. Friend well in Cairo; I only wish I were going with him.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth will be pleased to know that we already over permit on the aid budget in the expectation that not all offers of financial assistance to developing countries will be taken up.
    I must say a word or two about aid volume, which has been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) and for Southport (Mr. Banks), by the hon. Member for Monklands, West and by other hon. Members. No one contributor to our debate, other than my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, has given recognition to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that the aid-GNP ratio will be confirmed tomorrow to be 0.31 per cent. That is an OECD figure. It shows that currently Britain's aid contribution is above the average of all donors and that we are one of only seven countries that have increased their aid at present.
    It is arrogant and irresponsible of the Opposition constantly to claim that our aid programme is insubstantial and ineffective. It is arrogant because they fail to give credit to the skills and enormous achievements of those engaged in delivering aid and to our officials in the ODA.
    326
    It is irresponsible because the Labour party aspires to come to power and govern this country, yet it refuses to acknowledge the facts. For example, it will not acknowledge the fact that four leading countries in the world—the United States, Canada, Italy and Germany—three of which are as rich as or richer than us, are this year either cutting or freezing their aid. There was no mention of that from the Opposition. That should be contrasted with the modest increase that we are managing to achieve in our aid programme this year. There was no mention either that ours is the sixth-largest aid programme in the world. Ours is the sixth-largest economy, so we are about par for the course.
    Labour always says that it will find some way to increase aid. It wants to occupy the moral high ground. It is the same old assertion, but where would Labour find the money? Would it cut expenditure on social security? Would it raise taxes? If Labour intends to pay for increased aid by economic growth, it will not do that by encouraging railway signalmen to strike.
    Mr. Alan Meale rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly:—
    The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 295.

    Division No. 272]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clelland, David

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ainger, Nick

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Allen, Graham

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Alton, David

    Corbett, Robin

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Cousins, Jim

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Cummings, John

    Ashton, Joe

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Austin-Walker, John

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Barnes, Harry

    Dalyell, Tam

    Barron, Kevin

    Darling, Alistair

    Battle, John

    Davidson, Ian

    Bayley, Hugh

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bell, Stuart

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Denham, John

    Benton, Joe

    Dewar, Donald

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dixon, Don

    Berry, Roger

    Dobson, Frank

    Betts, Clive

    Dowd, Jim

    Blunkett, David

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Boateng, Paul

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Boyes, Roland

    Enright, Derek

    Bradley, Keith

    Etherington, Bill

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

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

    Fatchett, Derek

    Burden, Richard

    Faulds, Andrew

    Byers, Stephen

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Fisher, Mark

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Flynn, Paul

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Foulkes, George

    Canavan, Dennis

    Fraser, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Galloway, George

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Gapes, Mike

    Chidgey, David

    Garrett, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    George, Bruce

    Church, Judith

    Gerrard, Neil

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    327

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Gordon, Mildred

    Morley, Elliot

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Gunnell, John

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hain, Peter

    Mullin, Chris

    Hall, Mike

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Hanson, David

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hardy, Peter

    O'Hara, Edward

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Olner, William

    Harvey, Nick

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Parry, Robert

    Henderson, Doug

    Patchett, Terry

    Heppell, John

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hinchliffe, David

    Pope, Greg

    Hodge, Margaret

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hoey, Kate

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Home Robertson, John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Radice, Giles

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Randall, Stuart

    Hoyle, Doug

    Raynsford, Nick

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Redmond, Martin

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Rendel, David

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Hutton, John

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Rogers, Allan

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Jamieson, David

    Rooney, Terry

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Jowell, Tessa

    Short, Clare

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Simpson, Alan

    Keen, Alan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Khabra, Piara S.

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

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Snape, Peter

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Soley, Clive

    Lewis, Terry

    Spearing, Nigel

    Litherland, Robert

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Stott, Roger

    Loyden, Eddie

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Straw, Jack

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    McCartney, Ian

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    McKelvey, William

    Timms, Stephen

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Tipping, Paddy

    McMaster, Gordon

    Turner, Dennis

    McNamara, Kevin

    Vaz, Keith

    McWilliam, John

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Madden, Max

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Wareing, Robert N

    Mahon, Alice

    Watson, Mike

    Mandelson, Peter

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Martlew, Eric

    Winnick, David

    Maxton, John

    Worthington, Tony

    Meacher, Michael

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Michael, Alun

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Milburn, Alan

    Mr. Alan Meale and

    Miller, Andrew

    Mr. Eric Illsley.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Amess, David

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Arbuthnot, James

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    328

    Ashby, David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Atkins, Robert

    Forman, Nigel

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Forth, Eric

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Baldry, Tony

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bates, Michael

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Batiste, Spencer

    French, Douglas

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gale, Roger

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gallie, Phil

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Body, Sir Richard

    Garnier, Edward

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Booth, Hartley

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Boswell, Tim

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Gorst, Sir John

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Bowis, John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bright, Graham

    Hague, William

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Burns, Simon

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Burt, Alistair

    Harris, David

    Butcher, John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Butler, Peter

    Hawkins, Nick

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Carrington, Matthew

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hendry, Charles

    Cash, William

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hicks, Robert

    Churchill, Mr

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Clappison, James

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Horam, John

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Colvin, Michael

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Congdon, David

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

    Conway, Derek

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jack, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cran, James

    Jenkin, Bernard

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

    Jessel, Toby

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Day, Stephen

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Key, Robert

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Dover, Den

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Duncan, Alan

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Dunn, Bob

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

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Knox, Sir David

    Eggar, Tim

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Elletson, Harold

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Legg, Barry

    Evennett, David

    Leigh, Edward

    Faber, David

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lidington, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lightbown, David

    329

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Pickles, Eric

    Lord, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Luff, Peter

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Powell, William (Corby)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Rathbone, Tim

    MacKay, Andrew

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Maclean, David

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Richards, Rod

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Riddick, Graham

    Madel, Sir David

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Robathan, Andrew

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Malone, Gerald

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Mans, Keith

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Marland, Paul

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Marlow, Tony

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Sackville, Tom

    Mates, Michael

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Merchant, Piers

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Shersby, Michael

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Sims, Roger

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Moss, Malcolm

    Soames, Nicholas

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Nelson, Anthony

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Spring, Richard

    Norris, Steve

    Sproat, Iain

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Steen, Anthony

    Page, Richard

    Stephen, Michael

    Paice, James

    Stern, Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

    Stewart, Allan

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Streeter, Gary

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Sumberg, David

    Pawsey, James

    Sweeney, Walter

    330

    Sykes, John

    Walden, George

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Ward, John

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Watts, John

    Thomason, Roy

    Whitney, Ray

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Whittingdale, John

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Wilkinson, John

    Thurnham, Peter

    Willetts, David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Tracey, Richard

    Wolfson, Mark

    Tredinnick, David

    Wood, Timothy

    Trend, Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Trotter, Neville

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Viggers, Peter

    Mr. Bowen Wells.

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
    MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House supports the Government's clear strategy to support sustainable economic and social development, particularly in the poorest countries; commends the lead the Prime Minister has taken through his Trinidad Terms initiative, from which 22 countries now benefit, to reduce the debt burden of developing countries; welcomes the role played by the Government in the successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round, which will improve trading opportunities for developing countries and help them generate more of the resources they need for their development; commends its substantial and effective aid programme and in particular the use it makes of the expertise of British institutions, companies and non-governmental organisations; and welcomes the fact that the Government now publishes more information about the aid programme than ever before.

PETITION

  Bus Station (Ambleside)
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: It is a great honour for me to present a petition to the House. Perhaps I may be permitted to read it:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the many residents of and visitors to our small town of Ambleside in the heart of the Lake District National Park, which is associated with a petition numbering in total 11,721, of whom 3,060 are constituents of The Lakes Parish
  Sheweth
  That it supports the Lake District National Park Special Planning Board in its decision to reject proposals for the redevelopment as shops of the old Bus Station in the centre of Ambleside on the grounds that it is over-development of a most sensitive site, lacks any bus station facilities, has insufficient car parking spaces, inadequate delivery arrangements, would generate traffic hazards and exacerbate already chronic traffic congestion in the town. Further, that it seeks to achieve a solution of this protracted problem which satisfies the people of Ambleside and its elected representatives and protects the purposes for which the National Park was founded.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to use the powers granted to him by Parliament to call in the plans for his own decision, or in any case to refuse the appeal, in the hope that he will take account of the overwhelming local and national opinion raised against this redevelopment.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity of presenting this petition, which is hugely important to many of my constituents and many people who have a huge love of the Lake district, who see the development as a major threat to one of the jewels of England.
  To lie upon the Table.

Metropolitan Police (Obscene Publications Branch)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
10.19 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am pleased to have secured the opportunity to raise the anxieties that I and many colleagues on both sides of the House have about the important issue of the future of the obscene publications branch at New Scotland Yard. I am saddened that such a debate is necessary and that the House will have to listen again to a Minister persuading us that all is well and that action arising from the criminal justice Bill will solve all the problems. At least, that is what I expect him to say. I shall be delighted if I am proved wrong.
The Government will be aware that pornography is a multi-million pound industry. Those who work against pornography—the police, Customs and Excise and independent researchers—believe that the material in circulation appears to be becoming more hard-core. A survey reported last week by the university of central Lancashire suggests that computer pornography is available in 10 per cent. of our secondary schools and 2 per cent. of our primary schools. That can be only the start of what is going to become a new outlet for the pornographers, as technology becomes more freely available to our children.
In short, the problem will only get worse unless the Government take decisive action. Last year, I organised an exhibition of the work of the obscene publications branch for Members of both Houses so that they could realise the true extent of the problem of pornography. More than 300 Members attended. They were shocked by what they saw, and commended the commitment and dedication of the personnel of the branch.
The squad does not deal merely with girlie magazines from the newsagent. It deals with the most obscene material available in our nation. Its daily work involves the most perverted of adult pornography, which includes bondage and torture of women, the increasingly graphic computer pornography, and horrific child pornography. It is on the latter area that it has, not surprisingly, chosen to concentrate the majority of its resources. Indeed, the squad has ended the torment of many children.
I am sure that no one in the House tonight would do anything other than thoroughly condemn the increasing amount of pornographic material involving children. All of us agree that everything possible must be done to prosecute those involved.
In my Adjournment debate of May 1993 on the review of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, the then Minister of State acknowledged the place of enforcement in combating the pornographers. He said:
"An effective way of dealing with pornography is to hit the pornographer in the pocket. These people are in this business for profit. Effective enforcement of the law is a good way of dealing with the problem."—[Official Report, 4 May 1993; Vol.224, c.164.]
I welcome those comments, and the Government's actions on pornography in the criminal justice Bill, particularly the provisions that increase the enforcement powers of the police, especially on child pornography.
While I would still argue that there should be a fundamental review of the obscenity law, I accepted at face

333
value the assurance that a central plank in the Government's strategy was effective enforcement of existing law.
Imagine, therefore, my dismay when the Minister of State who will answer the debate tonight acknowledged in March, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), that the future of the obscene publications branch was included in the Metropolitan police Commissioner's review of specialist squads. I received information in April from the internal Metropolitan police magazine, "The Job", which confirmed the plans under review.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is considering whether the excellent and dedicated work done by the squad, in investigating paedophiles, should be undertaken by the already overworked child protection teams. The work done on obscene publications could be devolved to the clubs office in Soho, and the intelligence functions could be transferred to the central intelligence unit.
Mr. Frank Cook: I congratulate the hon. Lady on gaining this debate on such a crucial subject. May I quickly remind her that, less than 10 years ago, it was unknown for the police to be proactive in such matters: they were always reactive. Child protection teams always have a reactive response. Only the obscene publications branch has been able to weave its way through the constraints of rules of evidence and to pursue people, which has enabled it to be proactive. Out of a United Kingdom police force of about 100,000 officers, only 14 have been occupied in that proactive way. It will be little short of a criminal act if they are dispensed with.
Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which was most helpful. He has taken some of the words out of my mouth, and has reinforced the case that I intend to make.
When news of the review came to my attention, I immediately organised an early-day motion to raise awareness of the proposals and to urge the Home Secretary to ensure that the Commissioner abandons those plans, which demonstrate breathtaking foolishness. More than 160 Members signed the motion, and I am delighted to see so many of them here to support me tonight. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary then confirmed that the Commissioner was reviewing all the specialist operations at the Metropolitan police headquarters.
I was a little reassured when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House told me on 21 April that the Home Secretary intends
"to ensure that any changes help, rather than hinder, the fight against pornography and paedophilia."—[0fficial Report, 21 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 1040.]
How can that be done unless the obscene publications branch is retained as a single unit and strengthened?
I am a naturally trusting person, but when I heard that the branch had been removed from the 1994 edition of the definitive publication, "Police and Constabulary Almanac", even I was suspicious. The Minister's reply to a recent parliamentary question that that was a mistake is, quite honestly, hard to believe.
I am concerned that there will be change for the sake of change as a result of the review. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has written to me, saying:
334
"there is no question whatever of cutting the resources made available for work against pornography".
I am afraid that that typical, civil service language could cover a multitude of sins—indeed, of internal reshuffles.
I am urging the Government not to dismantle the organisation of the branch, which encompasses the greatest expertise on combating pornography that we have in this country. The vague promise of not reducing resources is, frankly, not enough.
I feel most strongly that the effectiveness of the fight against pornography will be greatly inhibited if it is fragmented. Why? Because there is strength in numbers —the sum of the whole is far greater than the sum of the individual parts.
Together with many colleagues, I believe that the effective way to fight pornography is with a specialised unit that has both national and international contacts. We need a national unit which is able to take an overview of the development of pornography in our schools and on our streets. We need a unit that can investigate child abuse, which often crosses county and national boundaries.
Such investigations place considerable demands on the resources of child protection agencies, and require high levels of strategic and operational co-ordination. We need a unit that can also advise regional vice squads who come across this material less frequently than those in the capital city. The obscene publications branch is a unique national asset. Because of its specialised nature, the branch is able proactively to investigate crimes on the basis of intelligence which can often lead to further crimes being prevented—the very point made by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).
If the work of the squad is devolved to already pressurised units such as the child protection team, the resources will inevitably become reactive and able to deal with abuse only as it arises. This approach cannot be regarded as
"further strengthening and providing support to those involved in combatting crimes of this nature",
which is the stated Government strategy outlined in a letter from the Home Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), one of many Members who have supported this campaign.
Some may object that it is the citizens of London who are financing what is often a national resource. I ask the rhetorical question—is this not also the case for the anti-terrorist squad? Most of the trade in pornography is inevitably centred on the capital, and it is therefore only right that the most prominent squad should be based here.
Computer pornography is a new growth market for pornographers. There are two methods by which individuals are able to obtain this material. The first is on computer disks, which are generally the source of the material found' in schools. Secondly, images can be transferred between computers via telephone links. In the increasing global world of computer networks, there is regular traffic in computer data from one side of the world to the other in merely minutes.
In the midst of normal business transactions, there is the vile trade in pornographic images. At the moment, as hon. Members can imagine, this is very difficult to police. The only way to stop it is to target the sources of the material, and this needs international co-operation between police forces. How can this be done if we do not have one central point of expertise with which other national forces can liaise?

335
I am not alone in my views. As I mentioned, more than 160 hon. Members from all parties supported my motion urging the Home Secretary to ensure that the branch is not disbanded. Many have written to my right hon. and learned Friend personally. Nine peers, including a former Home Office Minister and the chairman of the all-party group on children, wrote to The Times expressing their "profound concern" about the proposals, and urging the Government to ensure that the squad was strengthened.
Esther Rantzen, who helped launch the Child Line charity, said:
"I find it almost impossible to believe…We should be expanding this unit and allowing its expertise to be used for training other forces."
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has also raised its concerns with hon. Members and believes:
"the loss of the Obscene Publications Branch would seriously limit the effectiveness of professional child protection agencies in London, nationally and internationally. The only people to benefit from such as move would be paedophiles themselves."
No doubt the Minister will tell me that the decision on the operation of the branch is for the Metropolitan police Commissioner. Clearly the day-to-day management is under the responsibility of the Commissioner, but the policy decision to remove such a vital squad must come before the London police authority, which is my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary himself. As he has specifically left that police authority in his hands, I urge him to use his power to ensure that this effective unit is maintained—indeed, strengthened.
The review of the future of the branch is entirely misconceived, and totally at odds with the spirit of the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. The continuing uncertainties will be a major boost to those involved in the vile trade of child abuse and pornography. Far from being disbanded, the branch should be strengthened and supported as a major plank of law enforcement in the battle against paedophiles and all forms of explicit, degrading and violent pornography.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, but I shall only be satisfied with a guarantee that the branch will not be broken up. The icing on the cake would be the Minister's telling the House that he would increase the branch's resources in terms of money, manpower and equipment. I invite him to do so.
10.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on securing the debate. As she said, the future of the Metropolitan police obscene publications branch has recently been the subject of much comment, and has given rise to some anxiety—the sort of anxiety that she has expressed so eloquently and articulately. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the position, and to put it on the record.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments about the importance of the fight against obscene publications, child pornography and paedophilia. The fact that so many right hon. and hon. Members are present for the debate is also eloquent testimony to the concern felt by the House. I urge my hon. Friends, however, to accept that, while it is, of course, absolutely right to emphasise the importance of
336
the fight against child pornography, it would be wrong to speculate about what will happen in a review that is part and parcel of the operational responsibility of the Metropolitan police Commissioner.
Of course the Commissioner will pay careful attention to the remarks that have been made this evening, and to remarks made by a number of right hon. and hon. Members about the importance of the fight against child pornography; I assure the House that, in that regard, his view does not differ from theirs in any way. But—as I shall explain shortly—it is his responsibility to decide how to deploy his resources to achieve every possible advance in the fight against child pornography as effectively as possible.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. In fact, it was not my design to resort to a discussion of that Bill to bolster what I consider to be manifestly obvious—unanimity on the need to fight this vile offence. As my hon. Friend mentioned the Bill, however, I shall refer to it briefly.
It is precisely because the Government take so seriously the threat posed by the worst kinds of obscene material that we have included important measures against pornography in the Criminal Justice and Public order Bill. We think it vital for the law to keep pace with advances in modern technology such as computer pornography, especially computerised child pornography.
The Bill extends the law to cover those who transmit obscene material between computers, or manufacture or store child pornography on them. It also makes obscenity offences arrestable, and will give the police increased powers to obtain evidence against pornographers. It provides a possible prison sentence for those found in possession of child pornography, and brings the penalties for obscenity offences in Scotland into line with those in England and Wales.
Following recent Government amendments in another place, the Bill also increases penalties for those who supply videos to under-age children or supply unclassified videos, and lays down statutory principles that the British Board of Film Classification must take into account when classifying videos.
In the time available to me, I should like to reassure my hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members that the Commissioner is seeking to strengthen, not weaken, the fight against pornography and paedophilia. That is what I sought to make clear in my reply of 19 May to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is in his place this evening, when I said:
"There is no question of any relaxation in the fight by the Metropolitan police against pornography. The opposite is the case."—[Official Report, 19 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 941.]
I repeat that reassurance so that any remaining fears can be allayed.
The Metropolitan police are not reducing their efforts against those deeply unpleasant crimes. Rather, it is trying to improve its performance in dealing with them. The Government will not countenance proposals that would hinder the fight against pornography and paedophilia—and the Commissioner is not looking to make any. The Commissioner well recognises the evils of pornography and associated paedophilia. He and his senior colleagues have repeatedly and unambiguously made it clear that the force is committed to tackling those problems with resources, energy and determination.

337
The challenge for the Metropolitan police is to build on its successes and do even better.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Wardle: I should first like to make some progress; then of course I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
Like all well run organisations, the Metropolitan police has recognised that, to react effectively to changing times, it needs to review its structure and organisation. That is a matter for the operational judgment of the chief officer, the Commissioner.
Mrs. Winterton: The Minister has described how successful this country has been in tracking down and bringing pornographers to book. Cannot he accept the simple principle behind this debate: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? If the structure has been successful in the past, is successful now, has been proactive and is recognised, both nationally and internationally, as successful, why cannot the Commissioner simply say, "I am reviewing certain departments, but the obscene publications branch has a track record second to none, and I have no intentions of altering its structure; in fact, I intend to strengthen it with further resources"?
Mr. Wardle: I understand—as I understood when she spoke initially—and share my hon. Friend's sense of commitment in the fight against child pornography and the like. The principle "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is perfectly sensible as far as it goes, but in any well run organisation it makes sense to review from time to time in order to preserve the strengths and see whether any facets of the organisation could be improved.
It does not mean that everything that is good must be thrown out of the window. There is not an organisation in the world that would not benefit from an occasional review to identify and build on the strengths and see what other strengths can be developed.
I hope that my hon. Friend will now allow me, in the short time available, to continue to develop the theme that I began.
The Commissioner's aim is to improve policing performance and quality of service and to deliver a more effective use of resources, sharper accountability and improved communication and decision-making. That is his responsibility as the chief officer of the Metropolitan police. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that those are important and desirable aims.
We do him a disservice to assume, for reasons that are not entirely clear, that he would want to undo any of the strengths of the Metropolitan police, particularly in that area. It must be good management sense periodically to review an organisation's structure and see whether there are more effective ways of doing any aspect of the job.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear, the Government entirely support the Commissioner's review—and it is the Commissioner's review. We want all chief officers to cut unnecessary administration and to put the maximum possible effort into front-line policing and attacks on that type of vile crime.
No one can afford to be complacent about existing structures and organisational methods if they are to keep fit for the fight against crime, and if they are not to allow their organisations to ossify. The police need to ensure that they are organised as effectively as possible to meet new challenges in the most effective way. As my hon. Friend
338
told the House, we are up against some determined and extremely unpleasant criminals in that field. That is why it is so important that the Commissioner should have our support in his review, and that is what it is all about.
It is a pity, therefore, that the Commissioner's aims and methods have been misunderstood in relation to some of the specialist headquarters units, and, unfortunately, recent reports in the media have failed to reflect the policy accurately. I know that the Commissioner has written to some of the newspapers concerned, but, in the way of such things, reassuring letters do not catch headlines, and the public's anxiety has not yet been allayed completely. Perhaps it is understandable that my hon. Friend has expressed herself so forcefully this evening.
I make it absolutely clear that restructuring is not about what the Metropolitan police does. That is a matter for the annual policing plan, as I think my hon. Friend suggested, and that is approved each year by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Restructuring is about how the Metropolitan police organises itself to do what it does. That is a matter for the Commissioner, although, of course, he discusses his proposals with my right hon. and learned Friend.
I shall make three general points. First, the obscene publications branch has not been singled out. All headquarters units are included in the review, and I understand from the Commissioner that the work of the branch is expected to receive at least as much, and perhaps even more, attention in the new arrangements. There is no intention to cut resources or to pull out any functions. That is the view of the man in charge—the Commissioner. I believe that my hon. Friend recently had discussions with the Commissioner about that important subject.
Mrs. Winterton indicated dissent.
Mr. Wardle: Secondly, the review is in its very early stages. The Commissioner and his senior management team are not yet considering any proposal about the future of the branch, still less a decision. It is wrong, and I think not entirely constructive, to suggest otherwise. I understand the anxiety, but we must give the Commissioner a chance. Indeed, I understand that final decisions about reorganisation are not expected until April next year. All that has been done is to include the obscene publications branch in—or rather, not exclude it from—the restructuring review.
Thirdly, the branch's inclusion in the review is not to be taken as implying any criticism of its present management or operations. My hon. Friend has paid tribute to the successes of the branch. She is right to do so. The officers in the branch do a difficult job very well indeed, and have earned a great deal of respect on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend spoke about a national role for the Metropolitan police in that regard, and I should like to make a few comments. First, the Metropolitan police does not have an established or continuing national responsibility for operations involving computer pornography. I say that for clarification. It has, however, played an important role in training officers from all forces throughout the country in computer-related crime and the recovery of evidence, but other forces, such as those in Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, have their own vice squads with officers and equipment to combat that form of pornography.

339
Secondly, investigation of child pornography and paedophile rings is carried out throughout the country by different forces. Although the Metropolitan police does not have a national role as such, it has long been accepted that it has developed an expertise in that field and, in those circumstances, members of other forces turn to the Met and one another for advice and assistance. That is good practice, and I am sure that it will continue.
In conclusion, although it is too early to speculate about the outcome of the Commissioner's review, I think that it is a logical and correct step to consider possible areas of overlap and possible opportunities for strengthening the organisation, which is precisely what is being undertaken.
340
The question that confronts the Commissioner is simple: can we, by using our resources differently, do an even better job in fighting that type of crime? That is the question that the Commissioner is addressing, and I hope, after what I have said, that my hon. Friend and right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber this evening will agree that it is an entirely appropriate exercise for him to undertake. I believe that this is a question that all forces must deal with if they are to wage a successful war against crime. Every support and assistance should be given to help to find a valuable and durable answer.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what instructions are given to security staff in his departmental offices in London for dealing with(a) those sleeping rough in departmental doorways and (b) beggars in the vicinity; and how many problems have been experienced with each category in the last three months.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No formal instructions are given to security staff for dealing with those sleeping rough in departmental doorways or beggars in the vicinity. It is, however, normal practice for security staff to ask those sleeping rough in departmental doorways to move at the start of the working day if they have not already done so. No problems with either category have been reported within the last three months.

  Katyn
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will now review the withholding of eight of the 762 entered papers on files FO 371/34563–90, following the information about Katyn made available by the Russian Government on 14 October 1992.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Seven papers relating to Katyn were released to the Public Record Office in 1993. These were:

  FO 371/34553 (1943)

  FO 371/34590 (1943)

  FO 371/39385 (1944)

  FO 371/39421 (1944)

  FO 371/77476 (1949)

  FO 371/77477 (1949)

  FO 371/100719 (1952)

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is currently reviewing all other papers withheld on files 371/34563–89, only one of which appears to relate to the Katyn massacre. I shall let my hon. Friend know the outcome of the review in due course.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prescriptions for benzodiazepine drugs have been issued by the Department of Health and Social Services in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Ancram
  Some 7,995,602 prescriptions for benzodiazepine drugs were issued by general practitioners in Northern Ireland between 1983 and 1993.

  Government Offices (Union Flag)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether a flag pole has been provided at the premises of the roads service of the Department of the Environment in Armagh city; whether a Union flag has been supplied to these premises; whether advice has been given about the recognised days on which the Union flag is flown at Government offices; why the Union flag was not flown on the official birthday of Her Majesty the Queen at these premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Both a flag pole and a Union flag are provided at the Department of the Environment's roads service premises in Armagh city. Advice is usually given about the recognised days on which the Union flag is flown at Government offices but, owing to an administrative error, the date of the Queen's official birthday was not notified this year. Steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether a flag pole has been provided at the premises of the water service at the Department of the Environment in Armagh city; whether a Union flag has been supplied to these premises; whether advice has been given about the recognised days on which the Union flag is to be flown at Government offices; why the Union flag was not flown on the official birthday of Her Majesty the Queen at these premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Neither a flag pole nor a Union flag has been provided at the Department of the Environment's water executive sub-divisional depot at 15 Ardmore road, Armagh. Provision will be made as soon as possible to enable a Union flag to be flown at this building.

  Waste Paper Recycling
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to provide for payments to voluntary groups to collect waste paper for recycling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Government have no plans to provide for payments to voluntary groups to collect waste paper for recycling. New waste legislation is being prepared, which will introduce to Northern Ireland provisions similar to those contained in part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, including a recycling credit scheme.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sites have been identified in the constituency of South Down for the purposes of industrial development by the Industrial Development Board from 1 April 1984 to 31 March 1994; and which are they.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Industrial Development Board's industrial estates at Killough road in Downpatrick and at Milltown in Warrenpoint have been available for industrial development since 1984.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made by the Industrial Development Board on the indentification of sites for industrial development in South Down.
  165
  Mr. Tim Smith
  A 6-acre site has been identified at the racecourse on Ballydugan road in Downpatrick. A search for other possible locations has resulted in four sites being identified and a report on their suitability for industrial development is expected at the end of July.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs were created by the Industrial Development Board from 1 April 1984 to 31 March 1994; how many of these were the result of inward investment contracts; and what are the location of these jobs.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Information on job creations is not available in the manner requested or by location. However, details of jobs promoted by the Industrial Development Board over the last 10 years are available by district council area and are set out in the table. The Industrial Development Board's own research shows that companies create approximately two thirds of all promoted jobs over a period of three to five years after acceptance of the Industrial Development Board's offer of assistance.

  Jobs Promoted by the Industrial Development Board 1984–85 to 1993–94

  District Council Area

  Total Jobs Promoted

  Inward Investment Jobs Included in Total Jobs

  Antrim

  3,878

  1,972

  Ards

  1,419

  130

  Armagh

  562

  —

  Ballymena

  1,284

  323

  Ballymoney

  536

  116

  Banbridge

  206

  —

  Belfast

  4,145

  2,128

  Carrickfergus

  978

  216

  Castlereagh

  1,205

  407

  Coleraine

  1,205

  20

  Cookstown

  232

  —

  Craigavon

  5,039

  754

  Derry

  5,356

  1,626

  Down

  589

  121

  Dungannon

  2,544

  257

  Fermanagh

  1,350

  109

  Larne

  1,758

  100

  Limavady

  922

  483

  Lisburn

  2,567

  1,160

  Magherafelt

  832

  22

  Moyle

  52

  37

  £000s

  Category

  Belfast

  Western

  North-Eastern

  South-Eastern

  Southern

  1992–93

  Major

  —

  220

  —

  1,967

  104

  Minor

  164

  195

  468

  265

  105

  1993–941

  Major

  —

  14

  —

  3,358

  —

  Minor

  222

  192

  258

  74

  57

  1Provisional.

  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs have been created by the Local Enterprise Development Unit from 1 April 1984 to 31 March 1994; if he will list the locations of these jobs; and how many of these jobs still exist.
  166

  District Council Area

  Total Jobs Promoted

  Inward Investment Jobs Included in Total Jobs

  Newry and Mourne

  1,475

  347

  Newtownabbey

  4,585

  1,222

  North Down

  572

  60

  Omagh

  392

  131

  Strabane

  1,113

  —

  TOTAL

  44,796

  11,741

  House Sales, Ards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the income from the sale of houses for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in the borough of Ards for the years 1993–94 and 1992–93; and how much of this income was reinvested in the borough of Ards in each of those two years.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but its chief executive has advised me that income from the house sales scheme in the borough of Ards was £1·335 million for 1992–93 and £1·398 million for 1993–94. The Housing Executive's investment in the borough of Ards on new build was £1·919 million in 1992–93 and £1·659 million in 1993–94.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total capital expenditure for minor and major works for each college of further education in Northern Ireland during each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the colleges' total capital expenditure for each financial year from 1989 to 1992 is analysed by area in the "Statements and Summary of the Education and Library Boards' Accounts"—Cmnds. 1531, 1977 and 2249—copies of which are available in the Library.

  The 1992–93 and 1993–94 expenditure is as follows:

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Up to 1990–91 the principal measure of LEDU performance was job promotions. The job promotion figures for 1984–85 to 1990–91 by regional area are as follows:
  167

  Area

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  North

  672

  799

  653

  903

  675

  839

  775

  South

  859

  669

  992

  839

  975

  1,121

  1,110

  East

  1,903

  1,896

  1,974

  1,896

  2,036

  2,632

  2,942

  West

  575

  524

  582

  409

  709

  629

  674

  TOTAL

  4,009

  3,888

  4,201

  4,047

  4,395

  5,221

  5,501

  Since 1991–92 LEDU has identified net employment change within all LEDU client companies. These figures are not available on a regional basis.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Jobs Created

  1,750

  2,630

  2,870

  Jobs Lost due to Closures

  2,400

  1,610

  1,530

  Net Employment Change

  -650

  1,020

  1,340

  It is not possible to say how many jobs created by LEDU in a given year and location are still in existence.

  Red Squirrels
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by county the current estimate of the red squirrel population; what were the figures(a) five years and (b) 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  No estimate of the red squirrel population of Northern Ireland has been made. I counted five when I visited Belvoir forest park on 23 March. Support for the population of red squirrels includes full protection under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.

PRIME MINISTER

  State Property
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by date and item for the last 48 months when an item from the state property inventories maintained at No. 10 Downing street was discovered to have been missing; whether each item found to be missing was discovered by he Cabinet Office internal auditors or by one of his officials responsible for making periodic checks of the inventory; and if he will list those items that have now been traced, and where they were discovered.

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, no item from the state property inventories has been discovered missing within the stated period.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Surplus EC Food
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the production, distribution and transportation of the surplus EC food currently being distributed; the quantities and costs involved in the current year; and what his projections are for the changes and trends in the system next year and in subsequent years.

  Mr. Jack
  In 1994, the European Commission allocated 175 mecu—£136 million—to member states under the EC 168
  surplus food scheme which is fully financed by the Community. The United Kingdom received 29 mecu—£23 million—for the release from invervention stores of 6,840 tonnes of beef, its transportation to processors, processing into canned stewed steak and its distribution to designated organisations. Certain administrative costs of these organisations are also reimbursed. The transportation of the produce to organisations for distribution to about 1·6 million eligible recipients should be completed by the end of July. Copies of leaflets LP45 and LP46, which describe the scheme rules, are available in the Library of the House.

  The European Commission is responsible for allocating funds to member states and for approving their plans for operating this scheme. It does so for one year in advance only. For 1995, the United Kingdom's current plan is to maintain the present arrangements, but I shall be making an announcement about this later in the year.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will urge the European Commission to adopt a maximum eight-hour limit on slaughter journeys, and prohibit the export of farm animals to non-EU countries which do not comply with EU welfare standards during transport and at slaughter;

  (2) if she will support a maximum journey time for animals when the transport directive is decided upon.

  Mr. Soames
  At this week's Agriculture Council, the United Kingdom withheld support for a revised package of proposals on the welfare of animals during transport. We have obtained a commitment from the Commission that it will bring forward further proposals on journey limits by 1 July 1995.

  Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations exist regarding milk produced by cows known to be infected with the bovine immunodeficiency virus.

  Mr. Soames
  All milk for human consumption must meet the requirements of the Milk and Dairies (General) Regulations 1959 and the Milk (Special Designations) Regulations 1989 made under the Food Safety Act 1990. Animal feed containing milk or milk products must meet the requirements of the Agriculture Act 1970 and the Feeding Stuffs Regulations 1991, as amended. Neither the Acts nor the regulations refer to bovine immunodeficiency-like virus.

  Chickens
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been the losses in each of the last five years from(a) chicken cancer and (b) Mareks disease in chickens, and other herpes-based diseases.
  169
  Mr. Soames
  These diseases are not notifiable and therefore no comprehensive data is maintained.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) of 18 April,Official Report, column 415, which interested parties he has so far consulted and which he intends to consult regarding the future of the state veterinary service.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend will consult interested parties shortly. The consultation documents will be placed in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Court Escort Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conditions were specified in respect of the number of employees to be employed for the first phase of the contract in the contract with Securicor for carrying out court escort services in the Metropolitan police area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 22 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the court escort and custody service contract in the Metropolitan Police area.
  There were no conditions relating specifically to the number of employees to be employed by Securicor Custodial Services Limited for the first phase of their contract to carry out court escort services in the Metropolitan Police area. Securicor were required, however, to employ sufficient numbers to staff adequately all courts in the contract area thereby enabling the courts to function effectively. They were also required to employ sufficient staff to escort safely all those who were required at courts.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conditions were specified in respect of pay and terms of service of employees in the contract with Securicor for carrying out court escort services in the Metropolitan police area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 22 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the court escort and custody service contract in the Metropolitan Police area.
  There were no conditions specific to the pay and terms of service of employees in the contract with Securicor Custodial Services Limited for carrying out court escort services in the Metropolitan Police area.
  Securicor are responsible for the recruitment, selection, training, and pay and terms of service for all their personnel.
  170
  Recruitment policy and procedures must however be approved by the Prison Service. The Prison Service must be satisfied that the level of pay and the terms of service are sufficiently attractive to enable Securicor Custodial Services Limited to recruit and retain high calibre staff.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which companies tendered for the contract to carry out court escort services in the Metropolitan police area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 22 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the companies that tendered for the contract to carry out court escort services in the Metropolitan Police area.
  Tenders were received on 30 September 1993 from the following four companies: Securicor Custodial Services Limited; Reliance Custodial Services; Group 4 Court Services and Pinkerton Court Escort Services Limited.
  After carefully considering the proposals, the Prisons Board decided to award the contract to Securicor Custodial Services Limited.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the value of the contract awarded to Securicor for court escort services in the Metropolitan police area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 22 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the value of the contract awarded to Securicor for court escort services in the Metropolitan Police area.
  The contract is valued at £96 million and will run for five years.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is currently given to prison officers escorting prisoners to court; what is the duration of that training; and what training, of what duration, will be given to employees of private security firms engaged in this work from 27 June in the Metropolitan police area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 22 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the court escort and custody service contract in the Metropolitan Police area.
  All newly recruited prison officers receive specific training in court escort duties as part of their nine weeks induction course. The training comprises six sessions of 45 minutes each and

  171
  covers relevant court and Prison Service procedures. Many other aspects of the induction course are also relevant to escort duties, including a range of training in interpersonal skills and general security procedures such as searching, handcuffing, and use of the closeting chain.
  Securicor are required by the contract to train all their custodial staff to prepare them for certification and employment as Prisoner Custody Officers carrying out prisoner escort duties and as Prisoner Custody Officers performing custodial duties at a contracted out prison.
  The training consists of five modules which cover the following subjects: the legal framework; prisoner management; security; supervision and control; general. This training totals 234 hours.
  All training must be approved by, and completed to the satisfaction of the Prison Service.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what checks his Department has made for criminal records of the employees of Securicor who will be carrying out court escort services in the Metropolitan police area as of 27 June.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 22 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the checks made for criminal records of the employees of Securicor who will be carrying out court escort services in the Metropolitan Police area.
  All people who work at contracted out prisons and for the contracted court escort service are subject to routine enquiries about their suitability to work with prisoners. These enquiries are similar to those made in relation to applicants for Prison Service employment. Candidates who apply for employment, either in the public or the private sector of the Prison Service, in custodial duties or escort functions are exempted from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by the Rehabilitation Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, and therefore convictions which ordinarily are regarded as "spent" are taken into account.

  Probation and Bail Hostels
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home
  Department what is the total number of places in probation and bail hostels covering the Greater London area at 1 April.

  Mr. Maclean
  As at 1 April, there were a total of 343 approved hostel places in the Greater London area, comprising the inner-London, north-east, south-east and south-west London and Middlesex probation services.

  Deportation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions to make a deportation order have been taken in each of the past five years either under section 3(5)(a) or section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 where the person to be deported had made known to the Secretary of State the existence of his or her British citizen children.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Remand
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1990(a) the percentage of prisoners who are on remand for three months and over who are subsequently brought to trial, (b) the percentage of those on remand for three months and over who are brought to trial who are found not guilty and (c) of those brought to trial, found guilty and sentenced to a prison term, the percentage who have already served as long or longer on remand.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available.

  Immigration (EEA Nationals)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific amount of capital or income has been set by the immigration and nationality department to satisfy the Department of a European economic area national's entitlement to residence under Council directive 90/364 EEC.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No specific amounts are set, but in general we expect an applicant to have a sufficient level of income or capital to exceed the limits at which income support could be claimed.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is made under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994 or elsewhere to give effect to Council directive 75/34 article 5, which says that a retired self-employed citizen of the Union must be permitted a period of two years from the date on which he or she becomes entitled to the right of residence to exercise the right, even if the person has spent those two years outside the country.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Article 6 of the draft Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994 provides that a self-employed person who has ceased economic activity in the United Kingdom within the terms of Council directive 75/34/EEC is qualified to reside in the United Kingdom. No time limit is imposed within which this right must be exercised.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence of sickness insurance in respect of all risks the immigration and nationality department has determined to be appropriate for the purposes of Council directive 90/364 EEC.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This requirement is not applied at present.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of the European Union have been issued letters in each of the past five years advising them that their presence in the United Kingdom is no longer lawful on the ground that the person is not or is no longer exercising a treaty right; and how many of those decisions were subsequently executed in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information is available for only part of the period requested. Between September 1992 and December 1992, 27 letters were issued to European Community nationals advising them that, because they
  173
  were not in employment and had insufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on public funds, they were not exercising a right of residence under European Community law and accordingly should make arrangements to leave the United Kingdom. In 1993, 180 such letters were issued. Since 1 January 1994, when EC rights of residence were extended to the European economic area, 563 such letters have been issued to EEA nationals. The Benefits Agency is informed so that it can cease payment of any income support, but it is not known how many of those concerned subsequently left the country.

  Road Schemes (Protests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total costs of policing for protests regarding(a) the M11 link road, (b) Twyford Down and (c) the Swainswick and Batheaston bypass; and what additional funds have been made to the forces concerned.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Debts (Non-Payment)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and how many women have been imprisoned for non-payment of television licence fees in each of the last five years, giving the average amount of debt unpaid by these offenders.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is for 1991–93 and is given in the table. No information is available for the period before 1991 because the offence of non-payment of fines for using a television without a licence was not separately identified in the prison statistics. No information is available centrally regarding the amount of debt outstanding.

  Receptions into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of the community charge, rates, other debts and for using a television without a licence:

  May 1993 to April 19941

  Non-criminal offences

  Using a television without a licence2

  Month

  Non-payment of community charge

  Non-payment of rates

  Other debts2

  Males

  1993

  May

  97

  16

  23

  43

  June

  59

  12

  22

  45

  July

  106

  12

  32

  47

  August

  82

  10

  25

  45

  September

  96

  14

  29

  49

  October

  125

  8

  23

  48

  November

  96

  14

  20

  44

  December

  62

  6

  13

  34

  1994

  January

  78

  12

  23

  52

  February

  90

  10

  20

  40

  March

  97

  5

  15

  34

  April

  72

  7

  19

  31

  Females

  1993

  May

  8

  2

  —

  19

  June

  5

  2

  —

  20

  174

  Receptions into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of fine imposed for using a television without a licence 1991–1993.

  Year

  Number received

  Males

  Females

  1991

  258

  136

  1992

  405

  163

  11993

  553

  292

  1Provisional figures

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fine defaulters have been imprisoned for non-payment of(a) television licences and (b) community charge or council tax since 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the table. No information is available for the period before 1991 for non-payment of fines for using a television without a licence because the offence was not separately identified in the prison statistics.

  Receptions into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of fine imposed for using a television without a licence and non-payment of the community charge, 1991–1993.

  Year

  Offence

  1990

  1991

  1992

  19931

  Non-payment of fine for using a TV without a licence

  n/a

  394

  568

  845

  Non-payment of community charge2

  1

  113

  504

  1,157

  1Provisional information.

  2A non-criminal offence.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female debt defaulters were imprisoned in each month for the latest 12 months for which information is available in respect of non-payment of (i) community charge or poll tax, (ii) rates or council tax, (iii) television licence, (iv) hire purchase and (v) other debts.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is given in the table. No information is available centrally for nonpayment of hire purchase.
  175

  Non-criminal offences

  Using a television without a licence2

  Month

  Non-payment of community charge

  Non-payment of rates

  Other debts2

  July

  10

  1

  —

  31

  August

  15

  —

  —

  31

  September

  19

  5

  —

  20

  October

  12

  —

  —

  27

  November

  10

  —

  —

  31

  December

  6

  —

  —

  21

  1994

  January

  9

  —

  —

  25

  February

  15

  —

  —

  28

  March

  20

  1

  —

  19

  April

  12

  1

  —

  22

  1Provisional information.

  2In default of payment of a fine.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the 20 courts passing the largest number of custodial sentences in respect of the non-payment of debts for the latest period of 12 months for which there is information, specifying in addition how many of these sentences were for non-payment of(a) television licences and (b) community charge.

  Mr. Maclean
  I regret that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Urban Areas (Policing)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the formula for calculating areas of urban population for policing purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A new needs-based formula is currently being developed to inform the allocation of resources between police authorities. The definition of urban areas is being considered in that context.

  Deportations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been made in the last year for which figures are available of excessive force during deportations; and how many of these complaints were(a) about immigration officers and (b) about employees of private security firms.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  During the 12 months to 31 May 1994, complaints of this nature were made in four cases. All related to employees of private security firms, and all were found to be unsubstantiated.

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to date of implementing the Dangerous Dogs Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on the cost to the police, local authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts of implementing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is not held centrally.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prisoners at present serving a life sentence in prisons in England and Wales had their sentence reviewed by the Life Sentence Review Board during 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1993, the Parole Board considered 680 life sentence cases for release. I regret that information on the split between male and female cases is not readily available.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the amount of money paid to United Kingdom Detention Services for(a) start-up costs and (b) phase-in costs under the contract to run Blakenhurst prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 22 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the amount of money paid to United Kingdom Detention Services.
  The payments for start up costs were £3·3 million excluding VAT, and the payments for phase in costs were £4·5 million excluding VAT.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the amount of money paid to United Kingdom Detention Services for operating costs under the contract to run Blakenhurst prison during its first year of operation; and if this sum included the amounts paid for start-up and phase-in costs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 22 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the amount of money paid to United Kingdom

  177
  Detention Services for operating costs under the contract to run Blakenhurst Prison during its first year of operation; and if this sum included the amounts paid for start up and phase in costs.
  The amount of money paid in the first year of operation was £9·4 million excluding VAT.
  This sum does not include the start up costs which were paid before the prison commenced operation. However, it does include the phase in costs which related to the period during which the population of the prison grew to 95 per cent. of the certified normal accommodation. This point was reached in November 1993.

  European Elections
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the turnout across the United Kingdom in the recent European elections; and what was the comparable figure in each of the other member states.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about the number of electors and the number of valid votes counted in the United Kingdom will be included in a Home Office statistical bulletin. Information about the number of people voting in other member states is not held centrally and I will write to the hon. Member once I have the available information.

  Travel Documents
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) British visitor passports and (b) British excursion documents were issued last year; and what was the cost in each case;

  (2) what plans he has to abolish the British visitor passport and British excursion document;

  (3) what plans he has to consult relevant organisations about the future of the British visitors passport and the British excursion document; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In 1988, the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that urgent consideration should be given to the withdrawal of the British visitor's passport as soon as the computerisation of the passport-issuing process was fully operational. This position has now been reached and in September 1993 the United Kingdom Passport Agency began a review of the suitability of the British visitor's passport and the British excursion document as alternatives to the standard passport for travel abroad. The review is considering document security, international acceptability, customer choice and convenience, and other relevant factors. About 1,972,800 British visitor's passports, and 249,000 British excursion documents were issued in 1993–94 at a cost of £12 and £3 respectively.

  The Passport Agency has consulted widely on the review, and detailed responses have been received from travel agents, tour operators, transport and shipping associations, consumer groups and interested organisations within Government. The Passport Agency will be reporting its findings to me in the next few months, when a decision will be taken.

  Animal Testing
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the guidance on eye irritation tests.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The guidelines issued in 1987 have been reviewed by the animals (scientific procedures)178
  inspectorate and my right hon. and learned Friend has agreed that revised guidelines should be issued to establishments where such testing is carried out. The guidelines have been endorsed by the Animal Procedures Committee. Copies of the guidelines have been placed in the Library.

  The revised guidelines aim to promote best practice in order to keep to the minimum any suffering involved to animals used for eye irritation tests while enabling the requirements of regulatory authorities for such testing to be satisfied.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Switzerland
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Switzerland's relations with the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Switzerland has long-standing close links with the European Union. Following the Swiss referendum rejecting European Economic Area membership, the European Union agreed in principle in November 1993 to start negotiations with Switzerland on a number of new bilateral agreements. The Swiss referendum vote in February in favour of a ban from 2004 on lorries transiting the Alps has so far prevented agreement on a mandate for road transport negotiations. But the May Foreign Affairs Council asked the Commission to bring forward mandates in other priority areas and to obtain clarification of the transit ban, so that transport mandates could be adopted. The United Kingdom has pressed for negotiations to open quickly.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) of 19 April,Official Report, column 446, what precise steps are being taken to encourage India and Pakistan's accession to the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We continue to urge India and Pakistan to accede to the non-proliferation treaty at every appropriate opportunity both in our bilateral contacts and in multilateral forums. We are also supportive of all efforts to improve confidence and security in the region which we believe will help to create an environment in which accession to the NPT by these two countries will become more likely.

  North Korea
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments concerning the verification of North Korea's nuclear facilities; and what action he is proposing to take.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  North Korea's continued noncompliance with its safeguards agreement is a cause of great concern. North Korea recently completed the removal of all the used fuel rods from its 5 MW nuclear reactor without allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify independently where different rods had been located in the reactor, which prevented the agency
  179
  from verifying whether plutonium had previously been diverted from the reactor. A further worrying development is North Korea's decision to withdraw from the IAEA, though this does not affect the legality of their safeguards obligations. Action, including possible sanctions, is now being considered by the United Nations Security Council.

  Yemen
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of which countries appear to be supportive of each of the two sides in the Yemeni conflict.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Those countries that have issued statements about the crisis in Yemen have, as far as we are aware, supported neither one side nor the other. United Nations Security Council resolution 924, calling for an immediate ceasefire and dialogue to end the crisis, has received widespread support.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what practical action is being proposed to enforce the United Nations embargo on arms supplies to both sides in the Yemeni war.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations Security Council resolution 924 urged countries to cease the supply of arms and other materials to Yemen. No action is necessary in respect of direct exports from the United Kingdom since all military exports are already licensable. No licences have been issued for military equipment for the Yemen since this resolution was passed.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether Iraq is militarily supporting north Yemen in the Yemeni war.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no reliable information about Iraq's involvement in Yemen.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of which British commercial interests both in and outside Yemen are put at risk by the Yemeni conflict.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Plans by several British companies to assist the Republic of Yemen in refurbishing its infrastructure and developing its natural resources have been set back by the current conflict. For example, it was hoped that a major British company would be awarded a contract to help redevelop the oil refinery outside Aden, which has been hit by air raids. Additionally, a British consortium planning the expansion of Mukalla port and power generation has had to postpone its plans.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he fully supports the United Nations Secretary-General's report on Cyprus; and whether he endorses the Secretary-General's criticism of the lack of political will by the Turkish side to promote a solution to the Cyprus issue.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Nations Secretary-General's report of 30 May was an accurate reflection of 180
  the situation at the time. There appears to have been some progress since then. We await a further report by the United Nations Secretary-General.

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions he has made to the initial installation of a Palestinian administration in the former occupied territories.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have contributed £1·3 million to the World bank's trust fund for technical assistance and are contributing through the EC to the start-up costs of the new Palestinian Administration, and of the police in particular. Bilaterally, we have assisted the Administration with expert legal advice on the drafting of the Basic Law and with police training and equipment. We are providing assistance in the financial sector, including Bank of England assistance with the establishment of a central monetary authority, to the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction, and with the legal infrastructure in Gaza. We will also provide help in organising and monitoring the elections.

  Iran
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the reasons given by the Iranian Government for the expulsion of a British diplomat from the British embassy in Teheran; and what was his response to this action.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Iranian Government are reported as having claimed that Mr. Cowell, the British diplomat expelled from Iran, was involved in actions and behaviour contrary to diplomatic norms and had connections with terrorist groups in Iran. We have made it clear to the Iranians that these allegations are completely unjustified. In our view, Mr. Cowell's withdrawal was a tit-for-tat reaction to the removal of an Iranian first secretary in London in connection with attempts by members of the Iranian embassy to distribute forged documents.

  European Union
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in the last 10 years the United Kingdom has used its veto in meetings of the Council of Ministers and other EU ministerial groupings.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom can always ensure that its concerns are taken fully into account where the treaty requires unanimous voting. As votes are not normally taken in these circumstances, it is not possible to quantify the number of occasions over the past decade on which we have used the requirement for unanimity in order to insist on a particular outcome.

  Israel
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent developments there have been in Israel-Jordan relationships; and what is his policy on them.
  181
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Israel and Jordan have agreed to set up a bilateral commission to discuss water, environment, boundaries and security that will meet in the region in July. We welcome this, and hope there will be further progress on all tracks towards a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress there has been in changing the Malaysian Government's policy of not awarding Government contracts to British firms.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have been working hard to restore full trade relations with Malaysia and have remained in close touch with the Malaysian Government. The Malaysians have recently said that the embargo is under review, but have not told us when it will be lifted.

  Caspian Sea
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to him by the Russian Government concerning a British-Azerbaijani memorandum signed in February on oil and gas projects in the Caspian sea.

  Mr. Hogg
  The Governments of the United Kingdom and Azerbaijan signed a memorandum of understanding on energy co-operation in February 1994 which made reference to the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian sea. The Government of the Russian Federation subsequently transmitted to Her Majesty's embassy in Moscow a note setting out their views on the legal status of the Caspian sea.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Governments have now committed forces to the United Nations peacekeeping force in Rwanda; and when it is expected that these forces will be in place.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Ghana, Senegal, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Congo and Mali have all responded positively to the United Nations Secretary-General's appeal for troops to agument the United Nations aid mission in Rwanda. It is expected that the first of these troops will be able to be deployed in early July.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what logistical support the United Kingdom Government have committed to the peacekeeping force in Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has offered the United Nations 50 4-tonne four-wheel-drive vehicles for use by the United Nations peacekeeping force in Rwanda.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 13 and 14 June.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 13 and 14 June in Luxembourg.
  182
  The presidency briefed the Council on its plans for the European Council in Corfu on 24 and 25 June. Growth, competitiveness and unemployment would be the lead items. Other subjects would include the next President of the Commission, Mediterranean issues, aspects of the common foreign and security policy and a formal decision to set up the 1996 study group as agreed in March at the informal Foreign Ministers' meeting in Ioannina.

  President Delors presented a progress report on follow-up action on the White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment. There was a general discussion on issues that would be raised under this item at Corfu.

  The Council discussed relations with Ukraine, in particular proposals for assistance in the fields of nuclear safety and agriculture.

  The EC and its member states and Ukraine also signed a partnership and co-operation agreement, with President Kravchuk signing for Ukraine. In addition, the Council approved a negotiating mandate for an EC/Ukraine interim agreement on trade matters.

  The Council agreed that the EC-Russia partnership and co-operation agreement could be signed in Corfu, subject to Russian confirmation of the lifting of certain restrictions on the operations of European Union banks in Russia.

  The Council welcomed the ad referendum agreement by both the Muslim and Croat Mostar delegations to the memorandum of understanding defining the role of the European Union administrator who would shortly take over the administration of the city. The Council also discussed how best to develop its relationship with Croatia, and to encourage continued Croatian co-operation with the peace process.

  The European Union observer for Cyprus reported to the Council on recent developments in the United Nation's efforts towards implementation of the Secretary-General's package of confidence-building measures. The Council noted that, in spite of the unhelpful Turkish Cypriot attitude until recently, a last effort was being made to secure agreement, and that the United Nations Secretary-General would be reporting to the Security Council again soon. The Council agreed to continue to monitor the situation and to discuss it again at Corfu.

  The Council agreed mandates for the negotiation of new financial protocols with Cyprus and Malta.

  The Commission presented a paper on the EU-Mercosur relationship. After discussion, it agreed to produce a further paper on options for developing this relationship. The issue will be discussed further under the German presidency.

  Ministers agreed to extend the common foreign and security policy joint action on the stability pact to cover the follow-up to the Paris launch conference. The documents agreed at the Paris conference will be transmitted to Corfu.

  The Council noted a paper outlining the options available for financing costs arising from common foreign and security policy actions. It was agreed that these should be discussed with the incoming European Parliament and that further work should be undertaken on specific procedures.

  The Council discussed a presidency compromise package designed to secure agreement to a regulation to create a common Community regime of export controls on dual use goods. The package was agreed by 10 member

  183
  states including the United Kingdom but Denmark and Belgium asked for a little more time to reach a final decision.

  The Council discussed a proposal to amend the existing regulation on outward processing trade—OPT—in textiles. The subject was referred for further work by experts, pending discussion at the July FAC. A number of delegations, including the United Kingdom, called for the Commission to make a separate proposal establishing duty exemption for OPT conducted with the countries of central and eastern Europe.

  The Council appoved the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on large aluminium electrolytic capacitors from South Korea and Taiwan. The United Kingdom made a statement opposing this proposal, expressing doubts about the injury case and concern for the effects of such high duties on users.

  The Council agreed on a mandate for the Community to participate in negotiations on a convention to combat desertification, recommended by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.

  A co-operation council with Israel was held in the margins, attended by Mr. Shimon Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister.

  Because of shortage of time, the presidency deleted from the agenda the items dealing with aid to banana growers in the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, shipbuilding, access to documents and other business, including imports from China. These will be taken at a future Council.

  No votes were taken during the Council.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Science and Technology
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the importance of science and technology in the Government's White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win."

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The competitiveness White Paper reaffirms the message of the last year's White Paper, "Realising our Potential", Cm 2250—that science, engineering and technology make an essential contribution to national competitiveness.

  Research Councils
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish his recent letter to chairmen of research councils setting out the inter-relationships between the chief executives and the director general of research councils.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have already done so. On 23 May I sent copies of the letter to the hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and to the Chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee. A copy of the letter has also been placed in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of applications to his Department for projections of future state pension entitlement in the last year for which figures are available and the cost to public funds of this service.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of the pension forecast service is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 21 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking about the Retirement Pension forecast service.
  The Benefits Agency provides centralised services at DSS Longbenton, giving Retirement Pension (RP) forecasts and advice. One is for customers who are currently abroad or going to live abroad and is run by the Agency's Overseas Benefits Directorate. During the year ended March 1994, applications for forecasts totalling 26,142 were made to this service.
  The main RP forecasting service, which is part of the Agency's Newcastle Pensions Directorate, serves customers living in the UK. In the year ended March 1994 this service received 476,339 applications for pension forecasts.
  The combined running costs for these services are in the region of £1·5 million.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

  Income Support
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support elaimants are registered at the Chesterfield, Buxton, Ilkeston, Derby—Beckett street—Derby—London road—and Sutton Benefits Agency offices as at March 1994; and how many at each of these were(a) income support claimants signing on as unemployed, (b) pensioners, (c) income support claimants receiving a lone-parent premium, (d) those receiving a disability premium, (e) those receiving a carer's premium and (f) those receiving a severe disability premium.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Richard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 21 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for statistics relating to Income Support claims administered by offices within your constituency area.
  The complete range of information is not available in the format requested and could only be provided at a disproportionate cost. This is because statistics relating to customers receiving a Carer Premium and or a Severe Disability Premium are only collated on a national basis. The latest information available for those recieving a Carer Premium is available in the Annual Statistical Enquiry (ASE) for May 1992. The latest information for those receiving a Severe Disability Premium is held in the Quarterly Statistical Enquiry (QSE) for August 1993. A copy of both are available in the Library.
  Both of the above premiums can be awarded at the same time as other premiums.

  185
  I have attached a table showing pensioner customers, lone parent customers, unemployed customers and the number where the statistical information held on the Income Support Computer System (ISCS) shows that a Disability Premium has been awarded.
  Guidance advises that wherever a Disability Premium has been awarded, the statistical symbol should be amended on the ISCS. However, there may be cases where the customer receives a Disability Premium in respect of a partner where this action has not been taken, therefore the figures quoted may be inaccurate.
  It should also be noted that the number of customers who receive a Lone Parent Premium may not equate to the number of Lone Parents. This is because the Lone Parent may be entitled to a more beneficial premium.
  I have taken Sutton Office to mean Sutton-in-Ashfield.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Office

  Type of Income Support

  Derby (London Road)

  E

  6,326

  P

  4,178

  L

  3,440

  D

  1,214

  Derby (Beckett Street)

  E

  7,295

  P

  5,733

  L

  2,502

  D

  1,446

  Buxton

  E

  3,086

  P

  2,549

  L

  1,203

  D

  594

  Ilkeston

  E

  5,106

  P

  4,501

  L

  2,386

  D

  1,239

  Chesterfield

  E

  8,853

  P

  7,037

  L

  9,948

  D

  2,358

  Sutton-in-Ashfield

  E

  4,297

  P

  3,169

  L

  1,875

  D

  1,138

  E=Unemployed.

  P=Pensioners.

  L=Lone Parents.

  D=Those in receipt of a Disability Premium.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the cost and benefit to the taxpayer of a recent party for employees of the Child Support Agency in Plymouth.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. David Jamieson, dated 21 June 1994:
  186
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the cost and benefit to the tax payer of a recent lunch that was organised for employees of the Child Support Agency Centre in Plymouth.
  The lunch was organised as a local initiative by the Manager of the Child Support Agency Centre in Plymouth, at a cost of £4,800. It replaced the planned opening ceremony for the Centre which was deferred. I am looking further into the circumstances surrounding this occasion.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims have been made in Nottinghamshire for industrial injuries disablement benefit for emphysema and chronic bronchitis; how many have been successful; and how many and, on what grounds, have been refused.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of industrial injuries disablement benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 21 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about claims to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) for chronic bronchitis and emphysema Prescribed Disease (D12) in Nottinghamshire.
  Firstly, I would like to explain that there are two stages to the take on of claims for prescribed disease D12 (known as chronic bronchitis and emphysema), for which industrial injuries disablement benefit has been available since 13 September 1993 for people who have worked for at least 20 years underground in a coal mine.
  Stage 1 was restricted to claims from people who were aged 70 or over on 13 September 1993 or had an award of higher rate Disability Living Allowance care component or higher rate Attendance Allowance. Stage 1 ended on 28 February 1994; stage 2 commenced from 1 March and is open to anybody to claim. All claims are considered for payment from 13 September 1993.
  The information is not available in the precise format requested. This is because statistics are maintained by Benefits Agency (BA) Branch Offices and Districts whose boundaries do not correspond exactly with those of counties. I have therefore tabled, in the attached appendix, statistics which relate to the BA Districts of East and West Nottinghamshire and the Mansfield Branch Office which deal mainly with the Nottinghamshire area. It should be noted that these figures will include some people living outside the Nottinghamshire area.
  The figures have been obtained from a 100 per cent. count as of 12 June 1994 and may be subject to amendment.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix Claims to industrial injuries disablement benefit for prescribed disease D12 (Chronic bronchitis and emphysema) in the Nottinghamshire area)

  Number

  Claims being proceeded with

  4,452

  Successful claims

  362

  Disallowed on prescription

  92

  Regulation 22 cases1

  13

  Assessed at 1 to 13 per cent.2

  1

  Not diagnosed

  3,261

  1Where an applicant is already receiving IIDB in respect of PD D1 (pneumoconiosis) and has been assessed at over 50 per cent. disablement with chronic bronchitis and emphysema as a contributory factor.

  2IIDB not payable for assessments under 14 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. The above figures do not include 66 cases where the claim was

  187
  returned to the customer to claim at the correct time but they have not reclaimed yet.

  2. Source 100 per cent. count and subject to amendment.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of average earnings is represented by severe disablement allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  As at 4 April 1992, the latest year for which information is available, the average payment of severe disablement allowance was £37·45. This figure, which is based on the rates of benefit payable from 11 April 1991, represents 13·2 per cent. of national average earnings at April 1991.1
  1One per cent. sample of claimants for Great Britain and New Earnings Survey (Great Britain) April 1991.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the cases and amounts of money recovered by the compensation recovery unit from victims of asbestosis in Scotland since 1989.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensions (Christmas Bonus)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what date the Christmas bonus for pensioners was introduced; what was the amount of bonus payable to(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples in its first year; when it was last increased; what would be the amount of Christmas bonus payable to pensioners in 1994 if the level of payment had reflected the movement in the retail prices index or the average wage, whichever was the higher; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) if he will increase the Christmas bonus for pensioners in the current year to reflect the movement in retail prices since 1972.

  Mr. Hague
  The Christmas bonus was first introduced in 1972 at the rate of £10 for single pensioners and £20 for pensioner couples. No Government have increased the bonus since. If the Christmas bonus had been increased in line with the movement in the retail prices index or the average wage, whichever was the higher, the rate at December 1994 would be £101·90. We have no plans to increase the bonus.
  Sources:

  1. The Retail Prices Index (All Items), as published by the Central Statistical Office.

  2. Average Earnings Index (Whole Economy, Unadjusted) as published by the Employment Department.

  Note:

  Calculations rounded to nearest 5 pence.

  Michael Boothe
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what review of procedures he has instituted following the conviction of Michael Boothe for benefit fraud.

  Mr. Hague
  Following the conviction of Michael Boothe, a review of recruitment procedures is being undertaken to improve the checks made upon applicants.188
  We are examining the usefulness of personal referees and the procedures for taking references from previous employers.

  In addition, a study is due to start in July to determine why girocheques, and other instruments of payment, are being issued clerically.

  A full investigation of any specific allegations of further internal fraud will be conducted.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many refusals of disability living allowance at review have gone to appeal; and in how many cases the refusal at the review stage has been overturned on appeal;

  (2) how many refusals of disability living allowance have been taken to review; and in how many cases the original refusal has been overturned at review;

  (3) to what extent the proportion of successful appeals against refusal of disability living allowance exceeds the proportion of successful appeals against refusal of attendance allowance in the last three years for which it existed.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested as the reason for review or appeal is not recorded. Neither is it possible to give comparative figures for disability living allowance and attendance allowance appeals. Prior to 1992, decisions to award or refuse AA were made by a designated medical practitioner on behalf of the AA board, and there was no right of appeal analogous to the present right of appeal to a disability appeal tribunal. The AA board, itself, carried out reviews where requested. An appeal could be made to the social security commissioner, but only on a point of law.

  Reviews and appeals are not requested solely because of a refusal to award benefit. People already receiving DLA may be dissatisfied with the level or duration of benefit and many reviews are promoted by deterioration in a person's condition.

  The available figures relating to reviews and appeals are shown in the tables.

  Number

  All new claims for disability living allowance1

  1,030,942

  Rejected claims for disability living allowance1

  453,533

  All reviews requested within 3 months of the decision on the claim1

  231,985

  Unsuccesful reviews requested within 3 months of the decision on the claim1

  124,821

  Appeals made2

  38,785

  Appeals heard and decided2

  24,409

  Successful appeals2

  12,996

  16 February 1992 to 31 May 1994. Source is DSS (Analytical Services Division) 100 per cent. count of cases.

  2February 1992 to 17 June 1994. Source is Independent Tribunal Service 100 per cent. count of cases.

  Per cent

  Proportion of reviews successful

  Proportion of appeals to Disability appeal tribunals successful

  Attendance allowance 1990

  375

  —

  Attendance allowance 1991

  372

  —

  Attendance allowance 1992

  379

  —

  Disability living allowance

  146

  253

  189
  16 February 1992 to 31 May 1994. Source is DSS (Analytical Services Division) 100 per cent. count of cases.

  2February 1992 to 17 June 1994. Source is Independent Tribunal Service 100 per cent. count of cases.

  31 April 1993 to 31 March 1994. Source is DSS (Analytical Services Division) 100 per cent. count of cases.

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received(a) in favour of and (b) against the passage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill since its Report stage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Since commencement of Report stage, we have received a number of representations expressing a range of views including opposition to and support for the passage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. A detailed breakdown is not available.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost to the Exchequer of invalid care allowance; and how many people are in receipt of it currently.

  Mr. Scott
  As at 13 June 1994, the latest date for which information is available, there were 247,8361 people in receipt of invalid care allowance.

  The latest expenditure estimate for 1993–94 is £433 Million.2
  1Based on a 100 per cent count and subject to amendment.2Departmental Report 1994.

EDUCATION

  Schools (Organisation)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he plans to issue fresh guidance on the organisation of schools, reflecting the new provisions of the Education Act 1993.

  Mr. Patten
  I have, earlier today, issued a consultative circular on the supply of school places, to which interested parties have been asked to respond by Friday 5 August. The circular emphasises the importance of quality, choice, diversity and cost-effectiveness in the provision of new school places and describes the action being taken to secure that. Principal elements in the circular are:

  (i) the announcement that, in certain circumstances, I may be prepared to approve proposals for new school places despite the absence of a projected shortfall of places in the area, in particular where in my view the proposed new school places would significantly enhance the quality, choice and diversity of education available in that area and where there would be scope, following the approval of new places, for rationalising places at other schools;

  (ii) a description of the new framework for the organisation of schools under the 1993 Act, including the role of the new Funding Agency for Schools;

  (iii) guidance on how promoters might establish new grant-maintained schools. This new pathway is already attracting considerable interest;

  (iv) an outline of the streamlined process for the removal of surplus places, where practicable, while acknowledging that some may need to be retained to promote parental choice, or to preserve access to schools in rural areas.

WALES

  European Constituencies (GDP)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give in cash terms, and as a percentage of the United Kingdom average the gross domestic product per capita for(a) each of the new European constituencies in Wales, (b) the average for Wales, (c) the United Kingdom and (d) the European Community.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following table gives the information requested, except for information on European constituencies in Wales, which is not available.

  GDP per head 11991

  Percentage of United Kingdom average

  Wales

  12,452

  84·5

  United Kingdom

  14,732

  100

  EUR 12

  14,989

  101·7

  1Expressed in terms of purchasing power standard units (purchasing power adjusted ECU).

  Source: Eurostat

  United Kingdom GDP grew faster than GDP in Germany or France in the 1980s—the best relative performance since 1945. The latest forecast from the International Monetary Fund—April—suggests that the United Kingdom will have the fastest growth among major EC countries in both 1994 and 1995. In 1991, direct taxes, including community charge and social security contributions, on households in the United Kingdom took a lower proportion of personal income than in any other major European country.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers in Wales were entitled to receive sheep premium grants; how many claims, and what percentage of the total number of entitled farmers, were settled by(a) 30 April, (b) 15 May and (c) 31 May.

  Mr. Redwood
  Some 17,410 eligible claims were received in 1993. The number and percentage of claims settled is as follows:

  By 30 April

  By 15 May

  By 31 May

  Advance Payment

  15,877

  16,064

  16,113

  Percentage

  91·2

  92·3

  92·6

  Final Payment

  Nil

  Nil

  11,443

  Percentage

  —

  —

  65·6

  As at 8 June 14,422-82·8 per cent.—of final payments had been sent to farmers.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library copies of the annual reports of the NHS trusts in Wales which became operational on 1 April 1992 and 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Copies of the annual reports for 1992–93 and 1993–94 will be placed in the Library of the House when available.

  Rural Wales Forum
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet representatives of the Rural Wales Forum to discuss their survey of the difficulties faced by village halls; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Financial support to village halls in Wales is available under a number of schemes, including the voluntary youth services, village halls and community centres programme. On 29 March, I announced under this programme a three-year grant package of nearly £700,000 to support 44 local youth and community facilities in Wales costing a total of almost £1·62 million.

  Other Welsh Office schemes which can be considered for such support include the strategic development scheme and the social grants scheme operated by the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Local Authorities
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local authorities have failed to provide a list of background papers on official reports to their council committees in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the annual budget of the Development Board for Rural Wales; how the members of the Development Board for Rural Wales are appointed; and how many jobs have been brought to rural Wales as a result of the work of the development board.

  Mr. Redwood
  The development board's grant-in-aid provision for 1992–95 is £14·4 million. This, together with receipts from the sale of land and buildings, rents and other income, will enable the board to plan for gross expenditure of £27·3 million on such activities as property and business development, housing, a social programme and its own overheads.

  All candidates for appointment to the development board are considered by Ministers on their individual merits. Account is taken of the overall needs of the board and the balance of skills among members. The legislation provides that the board shall consist of between 11 and 13 members, at least five of whom shall be appointed after consultation with local authorities.

  Censuses of employment show that in 1991, the number of employees in rural Wales had increased by 11,000 since 1981. This represents employment growth of 18·9 per cent. in rural Wales. Comparative figures for Wales as a whole and for Great Britain are 2·9 per cent. and 1·2 per cent. respectively. Over the same period, employment in the manufacturing sector had increased by 15·6 per cent. in rural Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to make an announcement on the future of the Development Board for Rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  On 14 March 1994, I announced my intention of undertaking a review of the future of the 192
  DBRW. All Welsh MPs and local authorities have been consulted, together with a number of other interested bodies. Over 80 responses have been received and these are currently being considered. I hope to make my announcement before the summer recess, following consultations with colleagues.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received(a) in favour of the retention of the Development Board for Rural Wales and (b) against the retention of the Development Board for Rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: On 14 March 1994, I announced my intention of undertaking a review of the future of the DBRW. All Welsh MPs and local authorities were consulted, together with a number of other interested bodies. Some 81 replies have so far been received. A wide variety of opinions has been expressed, with about half the respondents favouring retention of the DBRW.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce new building regulations and amend existing building regulations to promote the development of barrier-free housing in terms of(a) new build and (b) renovated or modernised properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Environment, intends to consult on a range of building regulation provisions which could be applied to the design of new dwellings for the benefit of disabled people.

  There are no plans to consider the application of such requirements to existing dwellings subject to renovation or modernisation.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how the Welsh Office determined the baseline for the health gain target for Wales relating to the communication skills of people with learning difficulties and disabilities, as set out in the protocol in health gain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  An exercise to provide a range of information relating to individuals with a mental handicap is planned for later this year.

  Red Squirrels
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by county the current estimate of the red squirrel population; and what were the figures(a) five years and (b) 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside on 21 June 1994,Official Report, column 103.

  South Gwynedd Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made with a view to securing enterprise zone status for the Trawsfynydd-Blaenau Ffestiniog travel-to-work area in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The South Gwynedd partnership is working up a case for an enterprise zone in that area.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many representations he has received on the proposed re-introduction of compulsory sheep dipping; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many representations he has received during the last 12 months on the subject of sheep scab; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received numerous representations. Sheep scab is a disease which can be controlled by individual farmers, who are aware of the preventive measures and procedures needed to deal with it. The Government have no plans to reintroduce controls. The Government propose to carry out a publicity campaign during the autumn to encourage farmers to treat their sheep. We shall be stepping up our efforts to ensure that unfit animals are not presented for sale by increasing the official veterinary presence at markets.

  Minority Languages Treaty
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when it is expected that Her Majesty's Government will be a signatory to the European Union's treaty on minority languages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government need fully to consider all the implications of signing the Council of Europe's European charter on regional and minority languages, and no decision has yet been reached. So far, fewer than half of the Council's member states have become signatories.

  Agricultural Tenancy Reform
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received in favour of agricultural tenancy reform; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received four representations in favour of agricultural tenancy reform.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the representations he has received on the subject of the proposed reform regarding agricultural tenancies were in favour of a statutory minimum period and how many were in favour of total contractual freedom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received three representations on the subject of agricultural tenancy reform which were in favour of minimum period tenancies and four representations which were in favour of total contractual freedom.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what guidelines will be issued to the Staff Commission for Wales to ensure equity and parity between existing employees of county councils and district or borough councils; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what criteria will be employed by the Staff Commission for Wales in determining which members of staff should not transfer from existing to new local authorities under the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords]; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what guidelines will be issued to protect the employment prospects of those middle management who may be the subject of prior consideration under the staffing provisions of the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords]; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend will issue guidance to the Staff Commission after Royal Assent to the Local Government (Wales) Bill(Lords). This will deal, among other things, with staff transfer arrangements, prior consideration, and equality of treatment of county and district staff. The draft guidance issued on 21 April and circulated to all members of Standing Committee A has prompted many representations which are being considered.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State undertook on 16 June to write to the hon. Member on a number of staffing matters. He will do so shortly, and will place a copy of his letter in the Library of the House.

  Infertility
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what provision is made for infertility investigation in the Clwyd health authority area by the Welsh Office;

  (2) what is the provision for infertility treatment in Clwyd health authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The provision for infertility investigation and treatment is a matter for Clwyd health authority, which will take into account need, competing demands and available resources.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if Clwyd health authority has sought advice from the Welsh Office as to the most cost-effective and cost-efficient means of providing for infertility investigation and treatment in its area.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No.

  Laser Treatment
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the centres providing laser treatment under the national health service for short sight and astigmatism.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The use of lasers to treat short sight and other sight problems is being evaluated. Currently, there are no NHS centres in Wales providing this treatment.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what revisions he intends to make to his programme of market testing.
  195
  Mr. Redwood
  The revised programme, which runs from October 1993 until September 1996, covers activities involving at least 1,500 posts and valued in excess of £20 million, compared with the previous programme total of 300 posts and £5 million. The programme includes the following:Welsh Office: Typing Services
  Records Management Services
  Architects and Surveyors Services
  Activities within Cadw
  National Museum of Wales: Warding function
  Sports Council for Wales: Activities at Plas Menai and the Welsh Institute for Sport
  Non medical activities within the Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  The Careers Service in Wales

  Cancer
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many cases of cancers of all types per 100,000 head of population there have been in Wales in each year since 1970;

  (2) how many cases of bone cancer per 100,000 head of population there have been in Wales in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 25 May 1994]: Complete data on cancer registrations in Wales are not available prior to 1974. The information available is given in the following table.

  Cancer Registrations: Rate per 100,000 population1

  Bone Cancers 2(ICD(9)170)

  All Cancers (ICD(9)140–208)

  1974

  1·8

  399·8

  1975

  1·5

  417·7

  1976

  1·3

  408·1

  1977

  1·5

  417·9

  1978

  2·3

  435·8

  1979

  2·5

  443·3

  1980

  2·1

  445·8

  1981

  1·7

  449·3

  19823

  1 9

  452·1

  1983

  2·1

  489·2

  1984

  2·8

  513·5

  1985

  2·5

  528·1

  1986

  2·8

  541·8

  1987

  2·6

  537·4

  1988

  2·2

  552·2

  19894

  1·8

  536·6

  1Registration of primary growth site.

  2May include a number of cases where the cancer was recorded as a primary growth but was secondary.

  3Data for this year may be under-recorded due to industrial action in medical records departments at that time.

  4Provisional

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Listed Underground Stations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list to date the London underground stations that have been granted grade II listed status as buildings of special architectural or historic interest; and for which stations applications are still pending.

  Mr. Brooke
  The following London underground stations have been listed in grade II:
  196 Acton Town, Arnos Grove, Baker Street, Balham, Barkingside, Baron's Court, Bow Road, Chiswick Park, Clapham Common, Clapham South, Cockfosters, Collier's Wood, Earl's Court, Ealing Common, Eastcote, East Finchley, Farringdon, Fulham Broadway, Gloucester Road, Great Portland Street, Holloway Road, Hounslow West, Kennington, Kilburn Park, Loughton, Maida Vale, Moorgate, Mornington Crescent, Northfields, Notting Hill Gate, Oakwood, Ongar, Osterley, Park Royal, Piccadilly Circus, Rayners Lane, St. James's Park, Southgate, South Wimbledon, Sudbury Hill, Sudbury Town, Tooting Bec, Tooting Broadway, Turnpike Lane, Uxbridge, Wapping (Brunel's tunnel entrance and stairways from platform to street).
  There are no outstanding applications for the listing of any other London underground stations.

  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage for what purposes the British Broadcasting Corporation has been authorised to broadcast on the 198 KHz frequency; when this authorisation expires or comes up for renewal; and what undertakings or justification the BBC has given regarding its programming policy for broadcasts using this frequency.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is for the BBC to decide what programmes to broadcast on the frequencies made available to it for services in the United Kingdom, under its present royal charter and licence and agreement, which expire on 31 December 1996.

HEALTH

  Primary and Secondary Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the effect on the need for hospital beds of expanding primary care;

  (2) what evidence and research her Department has examined on the relationship between the levels of primary and secondary care services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Developments in primary care are only one of the ways in which we can move services closer to the patient's home. These, together with clinical advances leading to shorter lengths of hospital stay and higher rates of day cases, have a significant impact on the number of in-patient beds required. Ultimately, it is for local health authorities, taking account of all these factors and the views of local people, to assess the level of services needed to meet the requirements in their area and to negotiate appropriate provision. We will be examining the changing pattern of service provision to ensure that patients continue to receive effective and high-quality care.

  GP Payments
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 June Official Report, column 376, whether the payments to GPs for out-of-hours service are made from (a) family health services authorities cash-limited funds or (b) other funds; and in respect of what expenditure such payments are made.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The "Statement of Fees and Allowances", copies of which are available in the Library, sets out the conditions for payments to be made to general practitioners from both cash-limited funds and other funds.
  197
  Payments are made for a wide range of expenditure, including those associated with providing out-of-hours services.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average salary of Department of Health civil servants; what is the average salary of the best-paid 20 per cent.; and if she will list the grades and numbers of staff at each grade in her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  The average salary of the Department of Health staff, excluding agency and youth treatment service staff, as at 1 May 1994, is £22,365, and the average salary of the best paid 20 per cent. of these staff at the same date is £40,216. Departmental grades and numbers of staff at each grade are shown in the table.

  Details of the grades and numbers of staff in the Department of Health and its agencies

  Number in grades (whole-time equivalents)

  Grades

  Central department

  Agencies and youth Treatment service

  Grade 1

  1·00

  —

  Grade 1A

  2·00

  —

  Unified Grade 2

  9·00

  —

  Unified Grade 3

  23·60

  2·00

  Unified Grade 4

  5·50

  3·00

  Principal Medical Officer

  15·00

  2·00

  Deputy Chief Nursing Officer

  1·60

  —

  Deputy Chief Inspector SSI

  2·00

  —

  Unified Grade 5

  86·98

  8·00

  Senior Medical Officer

  60·50

  28·00

  Senior Dental Officer

  3·00

  —

  Principal Nursing Officer

  3·00

  —

  Assistant Chief Inspector SSI

  16·00

  —

  Unified Grade 6

  57·58

  20·00

  Medical Officer

  1·60

  2·00

  Nursing Officer

  35·10

  —

  Dental Officer

  4·00

  —

  Senior Principal Research Officer

  2·00

  —

  Senior Pharmaceutical Officer

  0·00

  10·00

  Unified Grade 7

  320·83

  51·50

  Principal Pharmaceutical Officer

  9·00

  49·00

  Inspector SSI

  107·00

  —

  Principal Research Officer

  3·75

  —

  Principal Scientific Officer

  11·50

  7·00

  Principal Professional and Technology Officer

  20·50

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  200·31

  28·00

  Senior Scientific Officer

  21·60

  3·00

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  40·00

  14·00

  Pharmaceutical Officer 1

  12·00

  17·00

  Senior Librarian

  5·00

  —

  Senior Information Officer

  10·00

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  484·24

  58·00

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  18·00

  —

  Higher Scientific Officer

  17

  22·00

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  27·50

  6·00

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  10·00

  —

  Senior Economic Assistant

  2·00

  —

  Librarian

  14·50

  1·00

  Information Officer

  16·00

  —

  Pharmaceutical Officer 2

  0·00

  7·00

  Executive Officer

  569·98

  151·22

  Administrative Trainee

  4·00

  —

  Scientific Officer

  11·00

  18·00

  Professional and Technology Officer

  2·00

  —

  Assistant Statistician

  9·60

  —

  Economic Assistant

  3·00

  —

  Assistant Librarian

  9·00

  1·00

  198

  Number in grades (whole-time equivalents)

  Grades

  Central department

  Agencies and youth Treatment service

  Assistant Information Officer

  4·00

  —

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  1·00

  5·00

  Administrative Officer

  477·03

  306·93

  Administrative Assistant

  161·70

  113·89

  Sandwich Student

  1·00

  —

  Laboratory Technician

  1·50

  —

  Senior Personal Secretary

  66·50

  5·00

  Personal Secretary

  247·79

  42·51

  Chief Typing Manager

  4·00

  —

  Typing Manager

  11·16

  2·00

  Typist

  99·36

  22·24

  Support Manager 2

  0·00

  1·00

  Support Manager 3

  8·00

  1·00

  Support Grade Band 1

  21·00

  5·00

  Support Grade Band 2

  92·10

  45·16

  Youth Treatment Service Care Staff

  0·00

  143·50

  Youth Treatment Service Industrial Staff

  0·00

  23·50

  Totals

  3,484·91

  1,255·45

  Note: Figures above are Staff in Post as at 1 May 1994.

  Stillbirths
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has taken to reduce the number of stillbirths as a result of obstetric cholestasis.

  Mr. Sackville
  Following discussions with Department of Health officials, the newsletter of the President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and also that of the Royal College of Midwives have carried items on obstetric cholestasis. The revised edition of the Health Education Authority's "Pregnancy Book" will also carry a reference to obstetric cholestasis.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many stillbirths there were in each of the five most recent years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of stillbirths registered in England and Wales by year of occurrence for the period 1988–92 are shown in the table.

  Year

  Number

  1988

  3,382

  1989

  3,236

  1990

  3,256

  1991

  3,254

  1992

  13,160

  1On 1 October 1992 the legal definition of a stillbirth was altered from baby born dead after 28 completed weeks gestation or more to one born dead after 24 completed weeks gestation or more. Between 1 October and 31 December 1992 there were 216 stillbirths of 24–27 weeks gestation. these are included in the 1992 total.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list for each local authority in England(a) the total number of children in foster care and (b) the total number of children in residential care homes; and if she will make a statement;
  199
  (2) if she will list the national average cost for residential child care and for foster care, and for each local authority in England (a) the average unit costs for residential child care and (b) the average unit cost for foster care; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the numbers of children looked after in residential accommodation and in foster placements at 31 March 1992 and the estimated weekly costs per child, from the publication "Key Indicators of Local Authority Social Services", will be placed in the Library. Care is needed in interpreting the figures because accounting practices vary between local authorities.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has in relation to practising general practitioners, fundholders and non-fundholders, being employed by provider units.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance TEL 94(1), copies of which are available in the Library, has been issued on the appointment of general practitioners as executive directors to the boards of national health service trusts.

  Diphtheria
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by year for the last five years, and by regional health authority, the number of cases of diphtheria reported in the age groups(a) under 10 years, (b) 10 to 19 years and (c) 20 years and over.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of cases reported to Office of Population Censuses and Surveys of diphtheria, by Regional Health Authority 1988–1992

  RHA

  Number of cases

  Age of patient

  1988

  Yorkshire

  1

  9

  1989

  North East Thames

  1

  11

  North West Thames

  1

  21

  1990

  North West Thames

  1

  19

  North Western

  1

  19

  Allocations for 1993–94

  Allocations for 1994–95

  Local authority

  AIDS support grant £

  Healthy Alliances scheme £

  AIDS support grant £

  Healthy Alliances scheme £

  AIDS allocations to local authorities in Yorkshire

  Bradford

  0

  150,000

  71,000

  4,000

  Calderdale

  0

  26,000

  15,000

  3,000

  Humberside

  0

  62,000

  32,000

  6,000

  Kikrlees

  0

  39,000

  27,000

  5,000

  Leeds

  267,000

  0

  101,000

  19,000

  North Yorkshire

  0

  31,000

  54,000

  10,000

  Wakefield

  0

  40,000

  15,000

  3,000

  AIDS allocations to local authorities in Trent

  Barnsley

  0

  18,000

  10,000

  7,000

  Derbyshire

  0

  31,000

  27,000

  5,000

  Doncaster

  0

  31,000

  10,000

  7,000

  Leicestershire

  115,000

  0

  60,000

  8,000

  Lincolnshire

  0

  31,000

  21,000

  4,000

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  48,000

  74,000

  14,000

  Rotherham

  0

  31,000

  10,000

  7,000

  Sheffield

  0

  86,000

  32,000

  6,000

  200

  RHA

  Number of cases

  Age of patient

  1991

  North East Thames

  1

  7

  South West Thames

  1

  26

  1992

  Northern

  1

  15

  Yorkshire

  1

  6

  East Anglia

  2

  36 and 37

  North West Thames

  2

  13 and 27

  South Western

  2

  25 and 41

  AIDS
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list by regional health authority the allocations made to local authorities in the Yorkshire region for AIDS support in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 ; and what was the basis of allocations to such authorities in each of these years;

  (2) if she will list by regional health authority what allocations were made to local authorities in the Trent region for AIDS support in (a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what was the basis of allocation to such authorities in each of these years.

  Mr. Sackville
  For 1993–94, AIDS support grant allocations were made on the basis of open-ended bids submitted by local authorities. Local authorities not receiving AIDS support grant were given money under the Healthy Alliances scheme for HIV prevention and joint working with health authorities.

  For 1994–95 local authorities were invited to submit expenditure plans against indicative allocations of both AIDS support grant and Healthy Alliances moneys. These allocations were based on confidential information available for the first time and supplied to the Department by the Public Health Laboratory Service on the distribution of AIDS cases by local authority area. Where this formula would mean a reduction in grant in 1994–95, local authorities were advised that there might, in exceptional circumstances, be some scope to adjust allocations on a transitional basis and that applications for additional grant could be made.

  The information requested for the Yorkshire and Trent regions is shown in the table:

  Rural Community Hospitals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what priority she attaches to rural community hospitals as part of the care in the community initiative and the NHS reforms.

  Mr. Bowis
  Both the new community care arrangements and national health service reforms have emphasised that NHS services should be responsive to patient needs. Community hospitals have a useful role to play in some areas in providing a limited range of services to meet local needs.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the names of the persons, together with any relevant experience or qualifications, who have been appointed to the new London ambulance service committee, the terms of reference of that committee, its quorum, to whom it is accountable and if its minutes and agenda will be published; and what financial functions it will perform.

  Mr. Sackville
  The London ambulance service committee is a sub-committee of South Thames regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Chris Spry, general manager of the authority, for details.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital admissions have been cancelled on more than two occasions within the Wandsworth health authority in each of the last three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority. The hon. Member may wish to write to Mr. Harry Cowd, chairman of the authority, for details.

  Child Health Surveillance
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of health authorities have made an assessment of child health surveillance needs in their area.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information will be available by the end of the year, following research commissioned by the Department.

  Diabetics (Disposable Needles)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning the availability of Novofine disposable needles used by diabetics; what is her estimate of their use where available; and what response she has made to representations;

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received during the last 12 months on the subject of the free provision of syringe needle attachments to the novapen used to treat diabetes; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have continued to receive representations about the availability of disposable needles 202
  on prescription. Disposable needles must take their place alongside the many other competing claims for national health service funding. The Department does not attempt to collect centrally information about needles purchased privately by diabetics.

  NHS Drugs Bill
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage increase in the NHS drugs bill, compared with the previous year, for each year since 1987; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  Annual increase in cost of National Health Service drugs

  Year

  Percentage increase

  1987–88

  11·3

  1988–89

  12·5

  1989–90

  10·9

  1990–91

  7·8

  1991–92

  14·5

  1992–93

  12·6

  Fluorosis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by regional health authority for the last five years, the number of cases of fluorosis that have been reported; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Clinical Standards
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work has so far been undertaken by the clinical standards advisory group; what further work is planned; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The group's first report "Access to and Availability of Specialist Services" was published with a Government response in July 1993, copies of which are available in the Library. Further reports on "Diabetes" and "Standards of Clinical Care for Patients Admitted Urgently or as Emergencies" will be published shortly. Reports on "Maternity Services—Women in Normal Labour" and "Back Pain" will be published later this year. The group continues work on reports on "Chronic Schizophrenia", "Dental Anaesthesia" and "Care of the Elderly" for publication next year.

  Capitation Allowances
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a report on weighted capitation allocation will be published; and what is her policy on changes in the allocation formula for hospital and community health services for 1995–96.

  Mr. Sackville
  The review of weighted capitation is still taking place.

  Patient Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether her Department intends to take action to ensure that staff who raise legitimate concerns about patient care are not bullied into leaving their posts by managers.
  203
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The guidance—EL(90)51—makes it clear that employees who express views about health care issues in accordance with this guidance are not to be penalised in any way for doing so. A copy is available in the Library.

  The responsibility for introducing local procedures to handle such staff concerns lies with each national health service employer.

  Health Authorities
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many members of district health authorities are also members of(a) county councils, (b) district councils, (c) London borough councils and (d) parish or town councils;

  (2) how many members of family health service authorities are also members of (a) county councils, (b) district councils, (c) London borough councils and (d) parish or town councils;

  (3) how many members of special health authorities are also members of (a) county councils, (b) district councils, (c) London borough councils and (d) parish or town councils;

  (4) how many members of regional health authorities are also (a) members of county councils, (b) district councils, (c) London borough councils and (d) parish or town councils;

  (5) how many members of boards of NHS trusts are also (a) members of county councils, (b) district councils, (c) London borough councils and (d) parish or town councils.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Community Care Services
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the criteria for independence of potential contractors for community care services which must be met before an organisation is eligible for special transitional grant.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities are required to spend at least 85 per cent. of the Social Security transfer element of the special transitional grant for 1994–95 on community care services provided by the independent sector. The conditions attached to the grant define independent sector expenditure as that amount spent by a local authority on community care services which they arrange to be provided by individuals who are not employed by any local authority under a contract of service or by organisations which are not owned, managed or controlled by any local authority or a combination of local authorities.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what precepts of the citizens charter govern the disclosure by regional health authorities of the sale price of hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  Details of individual land and property sales are commercially sensitive and exempt from disclosure.

  Mortality Rates
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by district health authority the figures for maternal mortality for each of the last two years for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting for major heart surgery in hospitals in the Greater London area as of 14 April.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting times is collected by specialty, district health authority and national health service trust. This information is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Medical Records
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will require hospitals to consult with the patients concerned prior to the destruction of their medical records after the required minimum period of eight years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  It would be impractical to require hospitals to trace and consult all patients before the destruction of their personal health records.

  The decision as to how long records should be kept is a matter for the hospital concerned, in consultation with health professionals. The minimum periods recommended in departmental guidance HC(89)20 and HSG(94)11, take account of a number of factors, including the potential need for research purposes, the possibility of complaints by patients and the time limits for bringing action in the courts. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Hand Driers
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has made to the report on hot-air hand driers and paper towels published on 29 March by the University of Westminster.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. This is a matter for local management.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the Government's response to the Health Select Committee's Report. "Better off in the Community? The Case of People who are Seriously Mentally Ill", HC, 1993–94, 102.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government's response, Cm 2588, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Ashworth Special Hospital
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) patients and (b) psychiatrists there were at Ashworth special hospital in June 1990 and June 1994.
  205
  Mr. Bowis
  The information is as follows:

  (a) 652 and 588.

  (b) 22 and 251.

  1This figure does not include one honorary consultant and two honorary registrars.

  Carers
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children under the age of 18 years are involved in the part or full-time care of(a) elderly relatives, (b) people with disabilities and (c) other children for the last 10 years for which figures are available;

  (2) how many (a) women and (b) men became involved in the provision of part or full-time care after retirement age;

  (3) how many women between the ages of 60 and 65 years became involved in the provision of part or full-time care.

  Mr. Bowis
  I am not aware of any research into these areas.

  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of(a) women, (b) men and (c) all adults, between the ages of 18 and 65 years are involved in the full-time care of children under five years on a (i) voluntary and (ii) paid basis for the last 10 years for which figures are available;

  (2) what percentage of (a) women, (b) men and (c) all adults, between the ages of 18 and 65 years are involved in the part-time care of children under five years on a (i) voluntary and (ii) paid basis for the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information is shown in the Department of Education statistical bulletin 11/93 "Pupils under 5 Years of Age in Schools in England—January 1993" and "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 1993, England". Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  GP Guidelines (Dispensing of Medicines)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has given to GPs who are permitted to provide patients with pharmaceutical services, on the training or qualifications of staff delegated to dispense medicines in their surgeries.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Gammaglobulin
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she takes to ensure that the availability of the vaccine Gammaglobulin is uniform throughout the country; and how many cases of shortfall have been reported to her Department in the last two years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Demand for Gammaglobulin is normally met by manufacturers. The Department is aware 206
  of two reports since July 1993 of shortages which were the result of supply problems experienced by manufacturers. The Department is in regular contact with the manufacturers and is continuing to monitor the situation.

  Generic Drugs
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the generic drugs prescribed by general medical practitioners which have been tested and found to be qualitatively inferior to the branded products.

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Medicines Control Agency under its chief executive, Dr. K. H. Jones. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Dr. K. Jones to Mr. Gareth Wardell, dated 22 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning generic drugs prescribed by general medical practitioners which have been tested and found to be of inferior quality when compared to branded products from innovator companies.
  The Medicines Control Agency is an Executive Agency of the Department of Health responsible for safeguarding public health by licensing medicines and monitoring adverse reaction to drugs.
  Generic medicinal products are assessed for safety, quality and efficacy by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) in the same way as innovator products before being granted a product licence. As part of the assessment the applicant is required to provide data showing that the generic product is equivalent or essentially similar to the innovator product.
  The MCA has investigated specific complaints about the quality of medicines products by generic companies and found them to be largely unsubstantiated.
  The Medicines Testing Scheme (MTS) monitors the quality of licensed medicinal products in the UK by obtaining samples of both generic and innovator products and testing them for compliance with their registered specifications. Comparison of results has not found a higher proportion of deficiencies in generic products when compared with innovator products. This finding is supported by reports of defective medicines to the Defective Medicines Report Centre which are no greater for generic than for innovator products.
  Whilst deficiencies do occasionally occur in both generic and innovator products, there is no evidence from the results of testing carried out by the MTS over the past two years to suggest that generic medicines are of inferior quality compared with the equivalent innovator products.

TREASURY

  Financial Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the total taxation levied by the Government in each year since 1964 in real terms, (b) the total annual Government expenditure for each of those years in real terms and (c) the annual inflation rate for each year since 1964.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  207

  Government Taxes and Expenditure

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Year

  Total taxes and NICs

  GGE (excluding pps)

  Nominal (£ billion)

  Real (£ billion 1990–91)

  Nominal (£ billion)

  Real (£ billion 1990–91)

  GDP deflator inflation (per cent.)

  1964–65

  10·1

  92·6

  12·3

  112·9

  4·5

  1965–66

  11·4

  100·2

  13·6

  119·2

  4·8

  1966–67

  12·4

  104·6

  15·1

  127·0

  4·2

  1967–68

  13·7

  11·22

  17·5

  143·0

  2·9

  1968–69

  15·7

  122·2

  18·2

  141·6

  5·1

  1969–70

  17·7

  130·8

  19·3

  142·7

  5·2

  1970–71

  19·3

  131·9

  21·6

  147·5

  8·2

  1971–72

  20·6

  128·7

  24·4

  152·7

  9·1

  1972–73

  21·9

  126·6

  27·6

  159·7

  8·2

  1973–74

  24·9

  134·8

  32

  173·2

  6·9

  1974–75

  31·8

  144·0

  42·9

  194·1

  19·6

  1975–76

  40·1

  144·5

  53·8

  194·1

  25·4

  1976–77

  46·3

  147·3

  59·6

  189·4

  13·5

  1977–78

  52·3

  146·3

  64·4

  180·2

  13·6

  1978–79

  58·6

  147·4

  75

  188·7

  11·2

  1979–80

  72·8

  157·0

  90·4

  194·9

  16·7

  1980–81

  85·9

  156·5

  108·8

  198·2

  18·3

  1981–82

  102·2

  169·7

  121

  201·0

  9 7

  1982–83

  110·6

  171·6

  133·1

  206·4

  7·1

  1983–84

  118·9

  176·2

  141·6

  209·9

  4·6

  1984–85

  129·3

  182·4

  152·8

  215·6

  5·0

  1985–86

  139·3

  186·2

  11·2

  21·5

  5·5

  1986–87

  147·1

  191·1

  169·3

  219·9

  2·9

  1987–88

  163·1

  201·2

  178·4

  220·0

  5·3

  1988–89

  178·0

  205·7

  186·9

  216·0

  6·7

  1989–90

  191·4

  206·8

  205

  221·5

  7·0

  1990–91

  205·4

  205·4

  223·5

  223·5

  8·1

  1991–92

  210·8

  198·3

  244·1

  229·6

  6·3

  1992–93

  208·7

  189·0

  269·2

  243·7

  3·9

  1993–94

  215·6

  189·4

  277

  243·3

  3·3

  Notes:

  Columns 1,2 Nominal and Real tax burden=Taxes on income+taxes on capital+taxes on expenditure+social security contributions+rates/community charge/council tax+royalties.

  Columns 3,4 Nominal and Real general government expenditure excluding privatisation proceeds.

  Column 5 growth rate in GDP deflator series, which is used to deflate the Nominal series in columns 1 and 2.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to raise the issue of the harmonisation of EU excise duties on alcohol at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.

  Sir John Cope
  The issue of excise duties on alcohol will be placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers when studies being undertaken by the Commission in accordance with article 8 of Council directive 92/84/EEC have been completed. This may be in time for the next meeting, but if not it will be raised at a later meeting.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to introduce additional measures to prevent illegal importation of alcohol for resale;

  (2) if he will initiate a review of measures which are taken in order to prevent the illegal importation of alcohol for resale.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs has deployed additional staff and taken other measures to counter the threat posed by the illegal importation of alcohol for resale. Customs is continually reviewing its methods and effectiveness in tackling this issue.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to harmonise United Kingdom excise duties on alcohol with those in the rest of the EC.
  208
  Sir John Cope
  Member states should be free to set the rates that they feel are appropriate to their own particular circumstances, subject only to the agreed minimum rates. That was the basis of the agreement reached by all member states at ECOFIN on 19 October 1992.

  Children
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product is currently spent on children aged under six.

  Mr. Nelson
  This information is not available.

  Personal Investment Authority
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the Personal Investment Authority.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Securities and Investments Board is today announcing that it has decided to recognise the Personal Investment Authority as a self-regulating organisation, and as a self-regulating organisation for friendly societies under the Financial Services Act 1986.

  The Treasury has given SIB leave under the FSA to recognise the PIA. That decision was reached after receiving two reports from the Director General of Fair Trading. Both reports concluded that the rules and guidance submitted by the PIA do not, and are not intended nor are likely to have, significantly anti-competitive effects. Having considered the DGFT's report, I have

  209
  concluded that there is no impediment to the Treasury giving the leave sought by SIB. The DTI and the Friendly Societies Commission, as the prudential regulators for insurance companies and friendly societies respectively, have also certified that they are satisfied that the PIA may be recognised.

  The PIA will regulate and supervise all types of retail financial services business covered by the FSA. This includes selling of life insurance and regulated collective investment schemes as well as independent financial advice. The PIA will aim for high standards of regulatory compliance so as to improve investor protection. It will start work as a regulator on 18 July.

  SIB is today also giving notice of the revocation of recognition of two existing regulators, the Financial Intermediaries Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association, and the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation. The PIA will cover the parts of business which those SROs now regulate and SIB has concluded that it is undesirable for those SROs to continue to operate now that the PIA is to be recognised.

  Brewing Industry (Cross Channel Trade)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the effect upon British brewers of cross channel trading.

  Sir John Cope
  I have received a number of representations on this subject which have mostly been made public. I have also noted other public statements not specifically sent to us.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to announce the results of his review of legislation affecting building societies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I hope to announce the results of this review shortly.

  Bank Notes (Demand)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has about the effects on the demand for bank notes of the rise in part-time employment.

  Mr. Nelson
  It is not possible to assess whether there is any effect of part-time employment on the demand for bank notes.

  Inland Revenue Requirements
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures he has in place to ensure that employers paying their employees in cash comply with Inland Revenue requirements for the deduction of tax and national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The duties of employers to deduct tax and national insurance contributions are set out in regulations and the Inland Revenue makes every effort through penalties, interest and collection procedures to pursue such deductions if they are not paid.

  Top-rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the number of top rate taxpayers in(a) 1989–90 and (b) 1994–95, giving estimates where necessary (i) in absolute terms and (ii) as a percentage of the total number of income taxpayers and also the change as between 1989–90 and 1994–95 (1) in absolute terms and (2) as a percentage change.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: The information is as follows:

  1989–90

  1994–95

  Number of higher rate taxpayers (thousands)

  11,500

  2,300

  Higher rate taxpayers as a percentage of total individuals paying income tax

  6

  9

  Change in higher rate taxpayers between 1989–90 and 1994–95

  (Thousands) 800

  (Per cent.) 53

  1Prior to independent taxation married couples are treated as one taxpayer.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) of 16 May,Official Report, column 295, if he will make a statement about the information on the regional distribution of duty-paid imports of beer given to him by the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association, and the conclusions he has drawn from this information.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 21 June 1994]: Individuals from anywhere in the United Kingdom may purchase duty-paid beer for their own use in other member states of the European Union. We have not sought to verify information on the regional distribution of legal duty-paid imports on beer compiled by the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association, although we have noted the conclusions.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) of 16 May,Official Report, column 295, if he will make a further statement on the involvement of organised crime in the illegal sale of duty-paid imports of beer.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 21 June 1994]: There is no evidence of large-scale organised crime being involved so far in this illegal activity. Anyone who has evidence of such activity should contact Customs and Excise.

  Defence Costs Study
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs will be cut as a result of the defence costs studies; and when implementation of these will begin.

  Mr. Aitken
  No final decisions have been taken on the recommendations of the defence costs study and it is not possible therefore to say how large a reduction in employment will result. Where proposals would affect employment, the normal consultation procedures will be followed before final decisions are reached. Implementation will begin once decisions are taken.
  211
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the timetable for cuts in the defence budget being considered under the defence costs studies will allow for consultation with trade unions and local and regional authorities.

  Mr. Aitken
  Proposals emerging from the defence costs study will be subject to consultation with the trade unions in the normal manner and will also be notified to other interested parties.

  RAF No. 1312 flight
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many crews and aircraft are currently deployed with No. 1312 Flight Royal Air Force; and what changes have been made to these force levels since 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are three crews and two Hercules C-Mark 1 Ks currently deployed with No. 1312 Flight Royal Air Force. No changes have been made to these force levels since 1992.

  Low flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the hang-gliding site on Farleton fell, near Kendal, Cumbria, is marked as an avoidance area on the low-flying charts used by Royal Air Force aircrew; and what is the grid reference of the datum point of this site.

  Mr. Hanley
  The hang-gliding site at Farleton is not designated as an avoidance area. It is however, marked on military low-flying charts and is listed as a warning in the United Kingdom military low flying handbook. The grid reference is N54 42.04 W002 42.13 (SD 542800).

  Helicopters
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the Royal Air Force rules governing flight by helicopters not equipped for instrument flying into areas where the forecast or actual weather conditions are below visual flight rules minima.

  Mr. Hanley
  All RAF helicopters are equipped for instrument flying.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Chinook HC2 helicopter received full clearance from the controller aircraft for flight in instrument meteorological conditions.

  Mr. Hanley
  CA Release for the Chinook He Mk II aircraft type to fly in instrument meteorological conditions was issued on 9 November 1993.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the forecast weather conditions in the vicinity of Cape Nero, Italy, on 9 September 1993 as provided to the crew of the Royal Air Force Gazelle helicopter which crashed on that date.

  Mr. Hanley
  The weather forecast for the route between Forsinone, Italy and Dijon, France indicated a general cloud base of 2,000 ft with a visibility of 7 to 10 km reducing to 4 km in rain and mist with a small probability of thunderstorms.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected publication date of the 212
  report of the investigation into the collision between a Royal Air Force Tornado and a civilian helicopter over Cumbria on 23 June 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The air accident investigation branch of the Department of Transport published its report of this collision on 7 June 1994. A summary of the RAF board of inquiry will be published shortly and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the administrative action taken against the crew of the Gazelle helicopter which crashed on 9 September 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not my Department's policy to reveal details of administrative action taken against RAF personnel involved in flying incidents, although action is taken wherever it is considered appropriate.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations, operating units and types of radar equipment forming the Falkland Islands air defence ground environment.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not our practice to release operational information of this nature.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many interceptions of aircraft apparently breaching the Bosnian no-fly zone have been made by Royal Air Force Tornado F3s during Operation Deny Flight; and if he will make a statement on the circumstances of each such interception.

  Mr. Hanley
  Operation Deny Flight is the NATO operation to monitor and enforce the air exclusion zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina. NATO's operational incident statistics for this task are not broken down by national aircraft, nor are separate records kept on the nature of each incident.

  Tornado (Navigation System)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the Royal Air Force Tornado GR1 fleet is currently equipped with the NAVSTAR global positioning system.

  Mr. Aitken
  Of the 96 established aircraft and eight in-use reserves on front-line Tornado GR1 squadrons, 43 aircraft are currently GPS-capable. For the future, we plan to integrate GPS equipment to all aircraft upgraded under the Tornado MLU programme.

  Chile (Military Equipment)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contacts or meetings Ministers or officials of his Department, or the Defence Exports Sales Organisation, had with General Pinochet of Chile in regard to military equipment sales during his recent visit.

  Mr. Aitken
  None.

  RAF Brize Norton
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reasons soldiers are required to go to South Cerney, near Cirencester, when they are flying from RAF Brize Norton;

  (2) how long, on average, soldiers have to report to South Cerney, near Cirencester, before their flight from RAF Brize Norton.

  Mr. Hanley
  South Cerney is the air mounting centre for United Kingdom-based service units deploying on operations and exercises. It is centrally placed between the RAF's two main air transport bases of RAF Brize Norton and RAF Lyneham and offers facilities not available at either, such as an operations suite, briefing rooms and sufficient holding areas for men and equipment up to brigade size.

  Passengers flying from RAF Brize Norton on operations and exercises report to South Cerney an average of four hours before their estimated departure. This allows time for processing, baggage checks, feeding and travel to the airfield.

  Policy Study
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that implementation of the Blelloch report will not lead to a reduction in the staffing of the newly formed MOD Guard Service.

  Mr. Hanley
  Sir John Blelloch's work is concerned with the MOD police and his review which was announced on 15 December,Official Report, column 739, has yet to report. The report which he submitted as part of "Front Line First" is being considered in conjunction with other defence costs study reports, including one on the general subject of security. We hope to make an announcement on the study as a whole, including our proposals for implementation, before the summer recess.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) of 13 May,Official Report, column 288, if anti-personnel mines come into the category of inhumane weapons covered by the United Nations inhumane weapons convention.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Nations weaponry convention governs the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects. Protocol II of the convention contains prohibitions and restrictions on the use of mines, booby traps and other devices. The use of anti-personnel mines would be covered by this protocol.

  Research Funding
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list universities and former polytechnics at which the Ministry of Defence has funded research in the last five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am arranging for the list placed in the Library of the House in May 1992 to be updated to reflect changes since then.
  214
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has considered changing his policy on making public details of research projects funded by the Ministry in universities.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has been and remains our consistent policy not to publish such details.

  Low-Flying Training, Goose Bay
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for RAF Harrier GR7 aircraft to carry out low-flying training at Canadian forces base Goose Bay.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently no plans to deploy Harrier GR7s to Goose bay for low-flying training. It is, however, possible that Harrier GR7s while staging through Goose bay en route to other North American detachment locations might conduct some low-flying training should the opportunity arise.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the last Royal Air Force Vulcan deployment to Canadian forces base Goose bay for low-level training took place.

  Mr. Hanley
  In 1982.

  Cambridge Military Hospital
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the. Secretary of State for Defence whether the restrictions on admissions to the Cambridge military hospital in Aldershot, Hampshire have yet been lifted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Cambridge military hospital, Aldershot restricted routine in-patient admissions from 16 to 26 May as a precautionary measure following the identification among new patients of the Methicillinresistant staphylococcus aureus bacteria. The GPs of all patients affected by cancellation of appointments were notified of the reasons behind this restriction, which had the approval of the local NHS consultant in communicable disease control. Neighbouring hospitals were also kept informed of the situation.

  The MRSA bacteria was systematically cleared from the hospital and no patients or staff developed any symptoms of MRSA infection. The hospital reopened for routine and emergency admissions from noon on 25 May and elective surgical lists resumed on 26 May 1994. The out-patients department and the maternity wing remained open throughout, while the accident and emergency department stayed open for out-patient cases and emergencies which, could not be safely transferred to other hospitals.

  F15E Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the report on the measurement of noise levels of the F15E aircraft is now complete; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library.

  Mr. Hanley
  The report is now complete and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Exercise Diver Mist
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the hon. Member for Don Valley may be sent a de-classified copy of the report evaluating the nuclear weapons accident Exercise Diver Mist held on 18 to 22 April in East Anglia, when it has been completed.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 25 April,Official Report, columns 84–85.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much advance warning was given to each of the civil and emergency authorities who participated in the Diver Mist nuclear weapons accident exercise on 18 to 22 April in East Anglia; and what is the significance of its title.

  Mr. Hanley
  Representatives of relevant emergency services and local authorities were formally involved in exercise planning from September 1993. The name of the exercise was, as normal, part of a randomly generated series and has no significance.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sewers
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average life expectancy of sewers which were constructed prior to the Water Act 1973.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is for the water company to determine whether a sewer requires replacement. I understand advances in repair and renovation techniques are having the effect of enabling sewers to continue in use after the date at which reconstruction would have been expected to have been required in earlier years.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the actual expenditure on sewerage infrastructure renewal for each water company for each year since 1989 and the total to date;

  (2) when he was informed of the £424 million accrued underspend of sewerage infrastructure renewal moneys in the water industry annual accounts;

  (3) if he will list chronologically the representations he has received on the requirements of infrastructure renewal in the water industry, indicating which responses to them have been made public;

  (4) what is the total accrued national infrastructure renewal charge to date shown in the water industry annual accounts for each water service company.

  Mr. Atkins
  In order to spread the cost to customers, the Secretaries of State decided at privatisation in 1989 to limit spending on infrastructure renewal in the short term and to build up a liability in the accounts to spend the money at a later date. The Director General of Water Services is responsible for monitoring water companies' spending on infrastructure renewal. Details of the industry's spending on infrastructure renewal are published each year in Ofwat's "Report on Capital Investment and Financial Performance of the Water Companies in England and Wales", copies of which have been placed in the Library. Information on individual 216
  companies' expenditure on infrastructure renewal can be obtained from the appointed business accounts which are available from the Ofwat library. Representations on infrastructure renewal in the water industry were received from the Severn Renovation Federation in 1993; the response was not made public, but the industry's spending plans have been in the public domain since 1989.

  Water Industry
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the assumption of reasonable return on capital as defined in the Water Industry Act 1991 for(a) the water supply companies and (b) the water service companies.

  Mr. Atkins
  When price limits were set by the Secretaries of State in 1989 they assumed that a reasonable return on capital would be:(a) a real return of 8 per cent. for most of the water supply companies, 8·5 per cent. for the smallest companies, and (b) a real return of 7 per cent. for the water service companies.

  The Director General of Water Services is currently considering the appropriate return on capital as part of his periodic review of price limits. In the consultation paper "Cost of Capital", published in 1991, he suggested that the appropriate range was between 5 and 6 per cent. He will announce the outcome of his review on 28 July 1994.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the land sale transactions he has approved by each water company,(a) since the Water Act 1989 and (b) since 1 February 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  Details of such land sales are not registered with the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has issued to water companies as to the proper procedures under section 10 of the Reservoirs Act 1975 for the appointment of an independent qualified civil engineer; and whether consideration can be given under these procedures to the appointment of former employees of the water company in question.

  Mr. Atkins
  DOE circular 5/85 set out general guidance on the operation of the Reservoirs Act 1975, including the appointment of qualified engineers. Section 10(9) of the Act requires that independent qualified engineers

  (a) shall not be in the employment of the reservoir undertaker otherwise than in a consultant capacity; and

  (b) shall not have been the engineer responsible for the reservoir or any addition to it as construction engineer, and shall not be connected with such an engineer as his partner, employer, employee or fellow employee in a civil engineering business.

  Housing
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the scope of his powers to allocate specific moneys to local authorities and housing associations to deal with the problems of Orlit, Whitsun-Fairhurst and other dwelling types with major structural defects; how much he has allocated to local authorities and housing associations in England to deal with these problems in each of the past 10 years; how many
  217
  houses classified as having major structural defencts have been dealt with due to central Government funding during the same period; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Section 569 of the Housing Act 1985 empowers the Secretary of State to contribute to expenses incurred by local authoriteis in assisting eligible owners of the 24 dwelling types which have been designated in England under section 528 of the Act. The Whitson-Fairhurst type has been designated in Scotland only. Contributions are payable on audited claims made by authorities in the year after the expenses were incurred. The table shows for each of the past 10 years:(a) the total number of dwellings dealt with, as reported by local authorities; (b) the Government's contributions to annual loan charges incurred by local authorities on dwellings dealt with before 1 April 1989; and (c) the capital grants made to authorities from 1 April 1990 on dwellings dealt with on or after 1 April 1989. Housing associations are not responsible for administering the scheme of assistance.

  (a) Dwellings dealt with, reported by local authorities

  (b) Contributions to annual loan charges incurred by local authorities £ million

  (c) Capital grants paid to local authorities from 1 April 1990

  1984–85

  162

  —

  —

  1985–86

  2,489

  0·003

  —

  1986–87

  2,909

  1·987

  —

  1987–88

  3,707

  4·870

  —

  1988–89

  3,837

  8·824

  —

  1989–90

  3,298

  16·363

  —

  1990–91

  2,843

  17·192

  54·544

  1991–92

  2,419

  16·621

  63·038

  1992–93

  1,523

  2·785

  54·305

  1993–94

  11,351

  132·631

  154·464

  1Provisional.

  Office Accommodation, Johnstone
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the Property Services Agency has for the utilisation or disposal of the premises formerly and currently occupied by the Benefits Agency at Floors street, Johnstone; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Crown building, Floors street, Johnstone, is occupied by the Benefits Agency, which expects to be moving out once it has set up a new customer service point in the area. There are no other Government demands for this space and, as soon as the Benefits Agency has confirmed its intended date of vacation, this freehold property will be offered for sale on the open market.

  Royal Yacht Britannia
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what hire charge is being paid by the London Docklands development corporation for the hire of the royal yacht Britannia for its reception on 29 June; and what is the estimated additional cost of the actual reception.

  Sir George Young
  No hire charge is being paid by the London Docklands Development Corporation. The estimated additional cost of the reception is £3,500.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has consulted with social security Ministers about the recent CHAR report about the bare necessities, the experience of homeless people and the discretionary social fund.

  Sir George Young
  There has been no consultation at ministerial level about this report, which I understand that CHAR published on 15 June. However, my officials are in discussion with colleagues in the Department of Social Security on this and related matters.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total amount of expenditure given for urban regeneration in the Greater London area; and if he will list the local authorities that have received funding and the amounts received.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total amount of expenditure given for urban regeneration in the Greater London area in the current year is £296·967 million. This amount is made up from the following programmes—estate action, urban programme, city challenge, task forces, housing action trusts, city grant, funding for the London Docklands development corporation and derelict land grant.

  Individual total amounts for each local authority are listed below:

  1994–95 expenditure provision for urban regeneration for London

  Borough

  Total (£ thousands)

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  Barnet

  450

  Bexley

  0

  Brent

  11,851

  Bromley

  0

  Camden

  4,330

  Croydon

  0

  Ealing

  2,000

  Enfield

  831

  Greenwich

  2,030

  Hackney

  18,921

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  4,834

  Haringey

  9,187

  Harrow

  0

  Havering

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  Hounslow

  7,756

  Islington

  5,397

  Kensington/Chelsea

  9,876

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  Lambeth

  19,773

  Lewisham

  21,174

  Merton

  900

  Newham

  55,309

  Redbridge

  700

  Richmond

  500

  Southwark

  19,437

  Sutton

  64

  Tower Hamlets

  59,784

  Waltham Forest

  36,700

  Wandsworth

  963

  Westminster

  1,500

  Total

  1294,267

  Grand Total

  296,967

  1Plus 2,700 for Derelict Land Grant not broken down above on an individual borough basis.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 339, what is the precise content of the full contribution beyond 2000 for the United Kingdom's climate change programme to which he refers.

  Mr. Atkins
  Decisions on this have not yet been taken.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage public sector landlords to provide disabled people with personal housing plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Decisions about the allocation of public sector housing are a matter for individual housing authorities, taking into account all their powers and duties under housing legislation. For people with community care needs, social services departments and housing authorities are asked to construct an individual's care plan with the objective of preserving or restoring non-institutional living as far as possible, and of securing the most appropriate and cost-effective package of care, housing and other services to meet the person's future needs.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce new building regulations and amend existing building regulations, to promote the development of barrier-free housing in terms of(a) new-build and (b) renovated or modernised properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment intends, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Wales, to consult on a range of building regulation provisions which could be applied to the design of new dwellings for the benefit of disabled people. There are no plans to consider the application of such requirements to existing dwellings subject to renovation or modernisation.

  Timber
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy to resist any boycott or ban of any timber species used in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what action his Department is taking to ensure that no boycott or ban of any timber species is allowed to be specified in any building contracts that involve public funding;

  (3) whether it is current Government policy that no timber should be discriminated against on environmental grounds.

  Mr. Atkins
  In terms of trade between countries, the treaty of Rome requires that all matters be dealt with by the European Community as a whole. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which is implemented within the Community under EC regulation 3626/82, controls and monitors international trade in many species of plants and animals, including some species of tree.

  As to materials within the United Kingdom, my Department is committed in its own green housekeeping
  220
  policy statement to encourage sustainable forest practices which maintain the biodiversity, productivity and ecological habitats of woodlands. This is reflected in our recently published guide for suppliers of goods and services to the Department, "Selling to DOE", which encourages suppliers to provide joinery, furniture and fittings manufactured only from wood produced from sustainably managed forests. There are no bans on any particular species.

  Home Improvements
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government will review the arrangements under which grant is paid to home improvement agencies before deciding whether to extend them beyond 1994–95.

  Sir George Young
  When we introduced the home improvement agency grant programme in 1991, we made it clear that the arrangements were for four years only in the first instance with any further decisions being taken following a review. We propose to carry out that review this year so that any changes considered necessary can take effect from April 1995. The review will need to consider issues such as the extent to which agencies have met their prime objective of helping people carry out building work to their home; the benefits of the service to both clients and practitioners—especially local authorities—and the need for any change in the nature or range of the service offered. I have today placed in the Library a copy of a letter which my Department has sent to a number of organisations involved with the work of home improvement agencies inviting written representations. We will be happy to receive views in writing from anyone else who wishes to contribute. We hope to announce our main conclusions from the review by the autumn.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the relationship between the Audit Commission and his Department, and the other Departments which sponsor the Commission's work.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Department of Health sponsor the Audit Commission. A joint framework document—"Accounting for Independent Audit"—which sets out the relationships between the Audit Commission and its sponsors, and between the sponsor Departments themselves, has been published today. Copies of the document have been placed in the Library.

  National Parks
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his timetable for the introduction of legislation to establish the national parks as independent boards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 June 1994]: The Local Government (Wales) Bill will allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to establish joint or special planning boards for the three national parks in Wales. However, it is our intention to introduce legislation to establish independent authorities for all 10 national parks in England and Wales as soon as there is a suitable opportunity to do so.

EMPLOYMENT

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of the compensation which could be secured in consequence of the various proceedings initiated by the EC Commission in consequence of the acquired rights directive; and if he will investigate the possibility of reducing public expenditure by establishing a programme for settling claims.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government do not believe that any significant claims for compensation resulting from those proceedings will be substantiated.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the consequences in terms of policy of the various actions initiated by the EC Commission against the United Kingdom on the application of the acquired rights directive; and what steps he will take to advise persons who might be entitled to compensation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All but one of the issues raised by the Commission have already been dealt with by amendments to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. The only outstanding issue concerns arrangements for consultation about proposed transfers. The Government are still considering the judgment on that point.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what liability is accepted by the Government for the costs already paid out by private employers in consequence of the legislation stemming from the acquired rights directive in light of the terms of the court decisions in the EC.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Courts and tribunals take account of relevant decisions by the European Court of Justice in interpreting national implementing legislation. It is for individual employees and employers to take their own legal advice on the effect of national or European law.

  Employment and Investment Report
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on employment and investment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government strongly support the report's conclusions that all industrialised economies need to adapt more rapidly to change than they have done in the past 20 years through increased labour market flexibility and that attempts to slow the pace of change through erecting barriers to trade or regulations to preserve existing patterns of employment will damage prosperity and employment in the long run. That strategy is very much in line with the policies which the Government have been pursuing for the past 15 years and which have brought us a rapid reduction in unemployment, including long-term unemployment.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Department or agencies for which it is 222
  responsible to (a) Coopers and Lybrand, (b) KPMG Peat Marwick, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) Price Waterhouse, (e) Arthur Andersen, (f) Touche Ross, (g) Grant Thornton, (h) Robson Rhodes and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster for (i) privatisation, (ii) market testing, (iii) management advice, (iv) accounting, (v) audit, (vi) consultancy and (vii) any other services in 1980 to 1983, 1984 to 1987, 1988 to 1991 and 1992 to 1993.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Disabled People (Employment)
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the level of compliance of each local authority with the requirements of the statutory quota scheme for the employment of disabled persons.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Tables of figures showing the number and percentage of registered disabled people employed by a wide range of public sector employers, including local authorities, are published annually in the Employment Gazette, with the agreement of the employers concerned. The latest available figures relating to 1 June 1992 were published in the April 1993 gazette, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in manufacturing industry in Greater London and Redbridge in 1979 and 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information is given in the following table:

  Employees in manufacturing industry

  Thousands

  Greater London

  Redbridge

  September 1981

  681

  13

  September 1991

  359

  6

  December 1993

  322

  1—

  1Not available.

  Between 1981 and 1993 manufacturing output in the United Kingdom rose by 21·5 per cent.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufactured Exports, East Midlands
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of Britain's manufactured exports originate in the east midlands.

  Mr. Needham
  Export figures are compiled on a national and not a regional basis. The east midlands contributed fully to last year's record export performance, when our visible exports totalled £121 billion.

  Association of South-East Asian Nations
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to promote trade with the ASEAN countries.
  223
  Mr. Needham
  My Department now has in place a wide range of measures to promote trade with the ASEAN countries. These include the appointment of five export promoters from the private sector, who work with teams of officials to provide first-hand advice and assistance to British companies exporting to the ASEAN bloc.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what role he sees for further reform on intellectual property rights in his programme to improve the competitiveness of British industry.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The United Kingdom is a country which depends on innovation to maintain its competitiveness. Strong protection for intellectual property around the world is therefore important to British industry. The Government were pleased that the recent GATT agreement provides minimum standards of protection and enforcement and we will be seeking to ensure that the agreement is implemented as fully and widely as possible. We will continue to seek improved protection through harmonisation of laws at European and international level.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the United Kingdom's competitiveness with the emerging newly industrialised countries.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom's competitiveness both with the newly industrialising countries and with other developed economies is analysed in the Government's recent White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win".

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next proposes to meet the Institute of Directors to discuss industrial competitiveness.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer to the answer my hon. Friend gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on his White Paper on Competitiveness.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) earlier today.

  Director's Share Options (Disclosure)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to improve disclosure of director's share options.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None. However, proposals are contained in the exposure draft of the urgent issues task force of the Accounting Standards Board published on 19 May. The draft is open for comment until 8 July.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of jobs in manufacturing(a) in June 1979 and (b) at the latest available date.
  224
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Manufacturing employment has been on a downward trend in the developed world for many years. The number of employees in employment in United Kingdom manufacturing industry was 7·3 million in June 1979 and 4·3 million in March 1994. The fall in manufacturing employment since 1979 reflects structural changes and sharply increased productivity.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to boost manufacturing investment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since 1979, investment in plant and machinery has risen by over 50 per cent. Further investment will be encouraged by the profitable and competitive manufacturing base which our policies are designed to maintain.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the percentage change in manufacturing output since 1979 and the figures for Germany, Japan and the United States of America.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since 1979, manufacturing output increased by 5 per cent. in the United Kingdom; 14 per cent. in West Germany; 43 per cent. in Japan; and 38 per cent. in the United States of America. However the comparison is affected by the timing of the economic cycle. Between 1981 and 1992—similar points in the economic cycle—United Kingdom manufacturing output grew by over a fifth.

  Aircraft Industry
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the European Union about protecting the interests of European aircraft industries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Ministers and officials at my Department have a continuing dialogue on the competitiveness of the European aerospace industry with our partners in the major European aerospace programmes such as airbus.

  Post Office
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what responses he has received so far on his Green Paper on the Future of the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Green Paper has not yet been published. However, we have received a number of representations since my right hon. Friend's statement on 19 May expressing a range of views on the future of the Post Office.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he was consulted about statements made by the Post Office chief executive on privatisation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Post Office board is entirely free to comment in public on issues concerning the future of its business.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish his consultation paper on the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Shortly.

  Shipbuilding Industry
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to discuss with his EU counterparts the future of the shipbuilding industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is meeting EU counterparts today, when he attends a meeting of the Industry Council, to discuss shipbuilding affairs.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the future prospects for the shipbuilding industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My officials are constantly in touch with representatives of the shipbuilding industry about their plans and prospects. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers recently met leading representatives of the industy to hear their reports and discuss their industry's future.

  Deregulation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's deregulation initiative.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The booklet "Deregulation—Cutting Red Tape", copies of which are available in the Library of the House, was published in January, setting out the aims and achievements of the deregulation initiative to date. Since then further developments have included:The completion of the departmental reviews of their regulations. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has recently submitted a report to the Prime Minister on the results of this.
  There are now 873 regulations earmarked for amendment or repeal, and 359 of the task forces' 605 recommendations have now been accepted and work is being taken forward by the new task force under the chairmanship of Francis Maude.
  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill has now completed its passage through the Commons and is currently before another place.
  The review of fire safety regulations has now submitted its report to the Government. We are considering its recommendations and how to proceed regarding publication.
  We continue to work with the European Commission and other member states to ensure that deregulation is at the heart of European policy making and that all new EC proposals are fully justified in terms of their costs and benefits.

  Telecommunications Industry
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to vary the ban on British Telecom and Mercury providing entertainment services via their national networks; what representation he has received regarding the ban; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  British Telecom and Mercury have precisely the same opportunities as other companies to provide entertainment services, through holding interests in franchises to provide cable television. The Government are committed to maintaining their policies on these matters, as set out in chapter 5 of the 1991 telecommunications White Paper. We have received correspondence on aspects of these policies from a variety of sources, and I have recently explained the justification for our policies to the Trade and Industry Select Committee.

  Steel Industry Subsidies, Italy
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take action to secure the withdrawal by the European Commission of subsidies being paid by the Italian Government to that country's steel industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government will continue to press the Commission to take firm action against any subsidies paid by the Italian Government to their steel industry which are not permissible under the European Coal and Steel Community treaty or the steel aids code.

  Machine Tools
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the latest figures for imports and exports of machine tools between the United Kingdom and Japan, Germany and Italy.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is provided in the table:

  United Kingdom trade in machine tools1 for 1993

  (£ million, current prices)

  Country

  Imports

  Exports

  Japan

  106·9

  9·2

  Germany

  122·7

  43·4

  Italy

  38·1

  14·6

  1Machine tools and their parts are defined as headings 728, 733 and 735 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  Source: HM Customs and Excise.

  Disabled People
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce a requirement that company annual reports should include a statement of their level of compliance with the statutory quota for the employment of disabled persons.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no plans to do so. The Companies Act 1985 already requires companies with more than 250 employees to include in their directors' report a statement describing their policy applied during the financial year for the employment of disabled persons.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the site of the headquarters of the Coal Authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government gave a commitment in their coal review White Paper that the headquarters of the Coal Authority would be located in Nottinghamshire. I announced yesterday in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith)Official Report, column 83, the initial accommodation arrangements being made for the authority pending its own consideration of longer term arrangements. The authority's headquarters will be located at 200 Lichfield land, Berry Hill, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, which British Coal Opencast will also continue to use for the time being. The authority will additionally take over British Coal's abandoned mine plans facility at Bretby in Staffordshire, and co-locate certain associated functions.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the review of fire safety legislation and enforcement he announced on 17 January has produced its report; whether it will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The review team submitted its report to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment and myself on 24 May. We are publishing the report today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The review team has carried out a thorough evaluation of the present system and identified a number of potential improvements. Since January, the review team has undertaken widespread consultation with all interested parties. It has found that there is an overlap in present legislation and that enforcement arrangements may impose burdens on businesses and create avoidable uncertainty. Enforcement responsibilities are sometimes blurred. This makes more difficult the task of enforcing the legislation and co-ordinating the activities of the various enforcers.

  The report puts forward a number of proposals which the review team believes would reduce burdens on business and introduce greater clarity into the system without undermining safety standards. These recommendations are now under consideration by Ministers. No decisions have yet been taken and we are committed to full consultation before any proposals for changing the existing arrangements are made. We would welcome the views of interested parties. We shall be consulting those organisations with a known interest in this matter for their views by 31 October 1994.

  The review team has risen well to the challenge, and we expect that greater clarity and simpler arrangements will improve standards of fire safety.

  Lloyd's
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when Lloyd's passed the annual solvency test.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The statement and certificates demonstrating Lloyd's solvency for the year ended December 1992, which are required by part IV of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, were received by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade at the end of August 1993. The corresponding documentation in respect of the year ended December 1993 should be delivered this August.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to convene a conference of representatives of overseas investors to discuss locating in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau regularly holds seminars in its major overseas markets. These are always well attended.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those activities within his Department which have been, or are subject to market testing; those 228
  activities which have been awarded to private contractors; those cases in which external consultants have been employed and the total cost of consultancy fees in relation to market testing.

  Mr. Eggar
  A full list of activities subject to market testing in 1992–93 and 1993–94 was published in the citizens charter first and second reports, Cm. 2101 and Cm. 2540 respectively. To date, the private sector has been awarded contracts within the following areas: the offshore geology programme, office and support services, and training. External consultants have been employed to support market testing of the activities listed in the reports with the exception of oil and gas royalties, ship radio licensing, outward missions and staff counselling. To date the total cost of consultancy fees for market testing has been £2·5 million.

  Early Payment Initiative
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the reduction of outstanding debts as a result of his proposed initiatives for early payments.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not available. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced in the White Paper on competitiveness a number of measures to address late payment. We will continue to monitor changes in payment times after these measures have been implemented.

  Exports
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what(a) proportion and (b) value of United Kingdom exports went to (i) the EC and (ii) non-EC countries in 1985, 1990 and the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  United Kingdom exports to the EC in 1985, 1990 and 1993 were £38 billion, £54 billion and £64 billion respectively, representing 49 per cent., 53 per cent. and 53 per cent. of United Kingdom exports. The value of exports to non-EC countries were £40 billion, £47 billion and £57 billion, representing 51 per cent., 47 per cent. and 47 per cent. of United Kingdom exports.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what applications for export licences to South America for defence equipment have(a) been granted, (b) received and (c) discussed over the past year; and what information regarding United Kingdom arms exports to Chile was given in the UN register.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 June 1994]: Details of applications for export licences for goods on the military list of the Export of Goods (Control) Order to South American countries are as follows. It has not been possible to give separate figures for applications discussed, as it is not possible, without disproportionate effort, to distinguish between those applications where discussions took place and those where they did not.

  Copies of the United Kingdom's returns for 1992 and 1993 to the UN register of conventional arms are in the Libraries of the House.
  229

  Export licence applications for military goods to South America 1 June 1993–31 May 1994

  Country

  Received

  Issued

  Argentina

  16

  3

  Bolivia

  7

  7

  Brazil

  641

  620

  Chile

  169

  142

  Columbia

  20

  12

  Ecuador

  19

  15

  Guyana

  8

  8

  Paraguay

  6

  5

  Peru

  30

  28

  Uruguay

  4

  4

  Venezuela

  23

  21

  Unfair Consumer Contracts Directive
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what specific consultations he had with industry prior to the finalisation of the EC unfair consumer contracts directive about the content of that directive.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: We consulted extensively with industry, and with other interested parties, on the text of the draft directive as soon as it became available. The comments that we received were taken into account during the subsequent negotiations.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the EC unfair consumer contracts directive applies to real property transactions; and whether the United Kingdom legislation required to implement the directive will distinguish between real and personal property.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: The Government's view is that the unfair contract terms directive does not apply to the sale of real property, though it would apply to any secondary transactions. It is not intended in the implementing regulations to distinguish between real and personal property.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has concerning the differences between the European Commission's understanding of the term "goods" in connection with the EC unfair consumer contracts directive and the definition of the term in United Kingdom law; how any discrepancy between the two understandings of the terms will be resolved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: I am not aware of any such differences. There is no general definition of what constitutes goods in United Kingdom law.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received from trade associations in the financial services sector, the manufacturing sector, and the house-building sector concerning the EC unfair consumer contracts directive; and what plans he has to meet a group representing trade associations in those sectors to discuss the directive.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: My Department has received 87 responses to its consultation paper on the implementation of the unfair contract terms
  230
  directive. These include a number from trade associations in the financial services, manufacturing and construction sectors. I have no current plans to meet any trade associations from those sectors, but a number of meetings have been held with my officials.

SCOTLAND

  Enzootic Bovine Leukosis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current number of cattle aged 30 months or under with enzootic bovine leukosis.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Currently there are eight animals in Scotland under the age of 30 months which have reacted positively to tests for enzootic bovine leukosis.

  Norwegian Salmon Imports
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations the Government have made to the European Commission to ensure that the minimum import price of Norwegian farmed salmon into the Community is reinstated.

  Sir Hector Monro
  None. Minimum import prices were introduced last autumn as an exceptional and temporary measure to counter low prices and expired on 17 May this year. Current data indicate that prices are well above the previous minimum import levels.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is being taken to prevent Norwegian farmed Atlantic salmon being dumped on the United Kingdom market.

  Sir Hector Monro
  We are giving every assistance to the industry in its efforts to seek a more stable market. My right hon. Friend and I have had regular meetings with the industry to ensure full understanding of the situation and to discuss possible solutions, and have brought about the resumption of discussions between the Scottish and Norwegian fish farming representative organisations.

  St. Anthony's Church, Johnstone
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish an ad hoc task force of relevant interests and expertise to provide St. Anthony's RC church, Hallhill road, Spateston, Johnstone, with advice on what sources of public funding may be available to assist repair to the church roof and to make the building wind and watertight; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I am advised that Historic Scotland has already provided the hon. Member with advice, in a letter from the chief executive dated 14 April 1994, on possible sources of public funding to assist with the repair of St. Anthony's church.

  Housing (Disabled People)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce new building regulations or amend existing building regulations, to promote the development of barrier-free housing in terms of(a) new-build and (b) renovated or modernised properties; and if he will make a statement.
  231
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend intends to consult on a range of building regulation requirements which could be applied to the design of new dwellings for the benefit of disabled people. We have no plans to apply any such new requirements retrospectively to existing dwellings.

  Scottish Homes has announced that it expects recipients of grant funding to adopt a policy of promoting barrier-free standards wherever possible; and the draft housing community care circular issued for comment in February drew attention to the advantages of barrier-free housing.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to encourage public sector landlords to provide disabled people with personal housing plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for local housing authorities and Scottish Homes to decide what housing information and advice to provide for applicants.

  The draft housing and community care circular issued for comment in February emphasised that community care users, including those with physical disabilities, and their carers, should participate in individual community care assessments covering the range of housing, health and social care services suited to their needs.

  Paisley Arts Centre in Education
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the amount of(a) capital and (b) recurring grants paid to the Paisley Arts Centre in Education, the youth theatre group based in Paisley, by the Scottish Arts Council in each year since 1988; what percentage of its outturn expenditure was covered by Scottish Arts Council grants in each year during the same period; what moneys PACE received from other sources in his Department during the same period; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Arts Council to discuss the youth theatre movement in Scotland; if he intends to raise the funding of the Paisley Arts centre in Education, the Paisley-based youth theatre group; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what changes in the criteria governing the allocation of grants by the Scottish Arts Council might have affected awards to the Paisley Arts centre in Education, the Paisley-based youth theatre group; whether he was consulted about any changes to these criteria; and if he will make a statement;

  Average Standard Local Authority Rents £ per dwelling per week

  Authorities

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Berwickshire

  12·75

  13·77

  14·40

  15·34

  16·86

  17·95

  19·05

  21·05

  22·50

  23·60

  24·76

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  13·22

  13·14

  13·14

  13·88

  14·59

  15·55

  16·48

  18·83

  20·23

  21·09

  22·77

  Roxburgh

  13·43

  14·72

  16·38

  16·87

  18·08

  19·79

  20·72

  23·96

  26·18

  27·62

  28·77

  Tweeddale

  11·28

  11·34

  12·69

  13·14

  14·27

  14·07

  15·50

  17·83

  19·56

  22·44

  23·25

  Clackmannan

  11·21

  11·66

  12·86

  14·34

  16·24

  18·89

  21·17

  22·94

  24·79

  25·23

  26·15

  Falkirk

  10·68

  11·61

  12·54

  13·89

  15·25

  17·04

  18·97

  19·80

  21·27

  22·90

  23·80

  Stirling

  9·29

  11·55

  13·62

  15·07

  16·09

  18·46

  20·67

  23·19

  25·30

  29·14

  29·26

  Annandale and Eskdale

  12·91

  13·85

  15·22

  16·49

  18·10

  19·35

  21·96

  24·18

  26·00

  28·10

  28·66

  Nithsdale

  10·50

  11·48

  13·13

  13·86

  15·45

  16·96

  18·75

  21·14

  23·21

  25·66

  25·72

  Stewartry

  13·96

  14·09

  15·45

  16·45

  18·06

  19·51

  20·75

  24·53

  26·89

  28·40

  28·39

  Wigtown

  14·17

  15·79

  16·69

  16·70

  17·57

  18·42

  18·90

  23·48

  27·07

  29·34

  29·77

  Dunfermline

  12·16

  12·15

  13·46

  14·70

  16·65

  17·94

  19·50

  21·54

  22·90

  24·91

  25·95

  Kirkcaldy

  11·60

  12·60

  13·85

  15·32

  17·02

  18·67

  20·62

  22·38

  24·48

  26·22

  26·69

  North East Fife

  12·69

  13·82

  15·87

  17·07

  18·16

  20·79

  21·09

  23·34

  23·52

  24·50

  25·00

  Aberdeen

  8·89

  11·21

  12·55

  14·69

  15·97

  17·92

  19·49

  20·81

  20·61

  21·55

  22·58

  232
  (4) if he will make a statement on the value and importance of the youth theatre movement in Scotland, with particular reference to the Paisley-based Paisley Arts centre in Education theatre group.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The relationship between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Scottish Arts Council is governed by the arm's-length principle. It is for the Scottish Arts Council to determine its artistic policy and strategy and to decide, in line with its artistic judgment, which individual arts bodies should benefit from the council's funds. Questions relating to the funding of arts organisations should be addressed to the council. My right hon. Friend attaches importance to the youth theatre movement in Scotland and will give support amounting to £62,920 in 1994–95 under section 23 of the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985 to the Scottish Youth Theatre, which is a national organisation operating on a Scotland-wide basis, the activities of which are broadly educational.

  No Scottish Office grant has been paid to PACE. My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet the Scottish Arts Council to discuss the youth theatre movement.

  Rats
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of(a) the likely change in the population of rats in the sewerage system and (b) which factors will determine that change; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The regional and islands councils in Scotland are responsible for sewerage matters and no authority has indicated to my right hon. Friend that there has been any recent change in the population of rats in sewers. No significant problem with rats in sewerage systems in Scotland is known to exist. Any outbreak or an increase in the rat population in sewers would be dealt with by the authorities' drainage departments.

  Local Authority Rents
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing(a) the average weekly rental charge and (b) the average increase in the weekly rental charge for (i) each district council in Scotland and (ii) Scottish Homes houses in each year since 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the tables:
  233

  Authorities

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Banff and Buchan

  12·43

  13·80

  14·98

  15·61

  17·27

  18·97

  20·01

  21·17

  22·09

  23·17

  23·65

  Gordon

  11·91

  13·63

  14·91

  15·11

  16·07

  17·72

  19·05

  23·31

  24·71

  27·05

  31·07

  Kincardine and Deeside

  11·80

  13·01

  13·85

  14·34

  15·03

  15·07

  17·12

  18·96

  21·62

  25·63

  27·87

  Moray

  11·64

  13·58

  14·03

  15·66

  17·25

  19·41

  20·77

  20·78

  22·28

  24·40

  25·81

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  12·56

  13·50

  15·35

  15·32

  16·91

  16·78

  15·93

  18·87

  22·13

  26·80

  28·49

  Caithness

  11·75

  12·65

  13·69

  14·84

  16·55

  18·08

  19·83

  22·21

  24·60

  27·13

  29·86

  Inverness

  11·28

  13·19

  14·02

  15·96

  17·91

  20·26

  21·59

  24·36

  27·06

  29·09

  30·19

  Lochaber

  12·28

  12·98

  14·29

  16·03

  17·14

  19·09

  21·17

  23·68

  26·50

  29·83

  32·10

  Nairn

  12·15

  13·53

  14·68

  15·79

  17·42

  19·27

  19·33

  23·94

  26·91

  27·22

  30·71

  Ross and Cromarty

  11·99

  12·73

  14·73

  15·85

  17·51

  19·60

  21·29

  25·09

  28·63

  30·99

  31·90

  Skye and Lochalsh

  13·02

  14·91

  16·88

  17·12

  18·05

  19·19

  21·41

  25·01

  29·72

  31·77

  32·44

  Sutherland

  11·83

  12·80

  14·17

  14·43

  15·79

  17·25

  19·68

  22·93

  27·47

  30·09

  32·46

  East Lothian

  11·10

  12·39

  13·36

  14·71

  16·28

  17·88

  19·98

  22·11

  22·63

  22·99

  23·58

  Edinburgh

  13·53

  13·35

  13·39

  15·23

  17·15

  21·27

  24·79

  29·10

  30·53

  32·13

  35·40

  Midlothian

  10·77

  11·83

  12·76

  13·71

  14·72

  15·81

  15·81

  15·92

  16·13

  18·13

  19·22

  West Lothian

  10·98

  11·78

  12·63

  13·53

  14·93

  16·72

  17·74

  18·81

  19·72

  21·27

  23·88

  Argyll and Bute

  13·29

  15·32

  15·31

  15·80

  17·36

  19·10

  21·46

  23·38

  26·27

  29·36

  31·95

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  11·45

  12·17

  14·23

  16·58

  17·97

  19·71

  21·83

  24·44

  27·66

  28·60

  28·45

  Clydebank

  10·04

  12·19

  15·04

  17·06

  19·00

  22·75

  25·55

  27·12

  26·60

  28·06

  29·07

  Clydesdale

  10·70

  12·15

  13·02

  13·85

  15·60

  17·34

  18·70

  20·88

  22·18

  23·58

  24·79

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  10·61

  12·74

  14·75

  16·42

  17·93

  19·77

  21·12

  23·06

  23·97

  25·63

  25·76

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  10·39

  11·11

  12·15

  13·61

  14·67

  16·34

  17·70

  20·30

  22·56

  24·35

  25·31

  Cunninghame

  8·85

  8·85

  10·50

  13·01

  14·80

  16·42

  18·35

  20·27

  22·13

  24·31

  26·47

  Dumbarton

  9·38

  9·38

  11·68

  14·60

  18·07

  21·15

  24·00

  25·77

  27·97

  29·90

  32·18

  East Kilbride

  12·44

  13·49

  15·55

  16·53

  17·46

  19·55

  21·61

  22·62

  24·36

  25·18

  30·98

  Eastwood

  11·02

  11·50

  11·94

  12·45

  13·91

  15·10

  16·59

  18·10

  21·06

  21·73

  22·39

  Glasgow

  9·63

  10·65

  12·61

  14·63

  17·18

  21·15

  24·02

  26·80

  28·65

  30·78

  31·49

  Hamilton

  10·03

  10·95

  12·80

  14·86

  15·65

  17·90

  19·37

  21·05

  23·25

  25·39

  27·00

  Inverclyde

  9·08

  11·30

  12·40

  13·33

  14·37

  16·85

  19·17

  21·44

  29·93

  25·94

  26·94

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  9·59

  10·59

  12·42

  13·85

  14·48

  16·22

  17·51

  19·39

  19·46

  20·83

  21·42

  Kyle and Carrick

  10·42

  12·18

  13·37

  14·38

  15·65

  16·57

  18·74

  20·22

  21·22

  26·28

  28·18

  Monklands

  9·30

  11·32

  13·68

  15·50

  16·95

  18·78

  20·25

  22·80

  23·66

  25·66

  27·37

  Motherwell

  9·91

  11·27

  12·46

  14·10

  15·03

  17·29

  18·60

  19·71

  21·03

  23·43

  25·51

  Renfrew

  8·81

  9·81

  11·50

  12·99

  13·92

  16·73

  18·70

  20·68

  22·45

  24·41

  25·88

  Strathkelvin

  10·57

  11·62

  14·18

  15·31

  17·24

  18·12

  19·45

  21·32

  22·87

  25·11

  27·41

  Angus

  11·70

  12·66

  13·77

  14·58

  14·48

  15·76

  16·80

  17·87

  17·76

  18·88

  19·81

  Dundee

  8·80

  9·82

  11·63

  13·61

  17·11

  21·19

  25·25

  28·20

  30·44

  32·06

  32·71

  Perth and Kinross

  10·77

  11·93

  12·93

  13·88

  14·63

  15·85

  18·17

  19·78

  22·12

  22·94

  23·94

  Orkney Islands

  11·00

  13·16

  14·49

  15·99

  17·06

  20·40

  22·61

  25·61

  28·00

  27·60

  29·53

  Shetland Islands

  10·52

  13·43

  14·97

  15·93

  18·21

  19·08

  20·68

  25·02

  28·90

  29·76

  31·06

  Western Isles

  14·88

  15·47

  16·50

  17·52

  18·96

  19·71

  22·46

  29·03

  30·89

  33·38

  34·19

  SCOTLAND

  10·46

  11·55

  12·99

  14·58

  16·29

  18·82

  20·93

  23·12

  24·65

  26·51

  27·79

  SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION SCOTTISH HOMES

  Average Rental Income

  13·06

  14·23

  15·79

  17·28

  19·02

  20·88

  23·81

  26·73

  29·14

  31·76

  33·83

  Annual average rent increase

  £ per dwelling per week

  Authorities

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Berwickshire

  1·20

  1·02

  0·63

  0·95

  1·52

  1·10

  1·09

  2·01

  1·44

  1·11

  1·15

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  2·22

  (0·08)

  (0·00)

  0·74

  0·70

  0·96

  0·93

  2·35

  1·39

  0·86

  1·68

  Roxburgh

  1·02

  1·28

  1·67

  0·48

  1·22

  1·71

  0·93

  3·23

  2·22

  1·44

  1·15

  Tweedale

  (0·05)

  0·06

  1·35

  0·44

  1·13

  (0·20)

  1·43

  2·33

  1·73

  2·88

  0·81

  Clackmannan

  0·96

  0·46

  1·20

  1·47

  1·91

  2·64

  2·28

  1·77

  1·86

  0·44

  0·92

  Falkirk

  0·51

  0·93

  0·93

  1·35

  1·36

  1·79

  1·93

  0·84

  1·47

  1·62

  0·90

  Stirling

  0·01

  2·26

  2·08

  1·44

  1·03

  2·37

  2·21

  2·52

  2·11

  3·84

  0·12

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1·22

  0·95

  1·37

  1·26

  1·61

  1·25

  2·61

  2·21

  1·82

  2·10

  0·56

  Nithsdale

  0·90

  0·98

  1·66

  0·72

  1·59

  1·52

  1·79

  2·39

  2·06

  2·46

  0·06

  Stewartry

  1·31

  0·13

  1·36

  1·00

  1·61

  1·45

  1·24

  3·77

  2·36

  1·51

  (0·00)

  Wigtown

  2·19

  1·62

  0·90

  0·01

  0·87

  0·85

  0·48

  4·57

  3·60

  2·26

  0·43

  Dunfermline

  0·49

  (0·00)

  1·30

  1·25

  1·94

  1·29

  1·56

  2·04

  1·36

  2·02

  1·03

  Kirkcaldy

  1·15

  0·99

  1·25

  1·47

  1·69

  1·65

  1·95

  1·76

  2·10

  1·74

  0·47

  North East Fife

  (0·05)

  1·14

  2·05

  1·20

  1·09

  2·63

  0·29

  2·26

  0·18

  0·98

  0·50

  Aberdeen

  0·98

  2·32

  1·34

  2·14

  1·27

  1·95

  1·57

  1·32

  (0·20)

  0·95

  1·03

  Banff and Buchan

  1·17

  1·37

  1·18

  0·63

  1·66

  1·70

  1·04

  1·16

  0·92

  1·08

  0·48

  Gordon

  0·50

  1·73

  1·27

  0·20

  0·95

  1·65

  1·33

  4·26

  1·40

  2·34

  4·02

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1·28

  1·21

  0·84

  0·49

  0·70

  0·03

  2·05

  1·84

  2·66

  4·01

  2·24

  Moray

  1·29

  1·94

  0·45

  1·63

  1·59

  2·16

  1·35

  0·01

  1·50

  2·12

  1·41

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  1·04

  0·94

  1·85

  (0·02)

  1·59

  (0·13)

  (0·85)

  2·94

  3·26

  4·67

  1·69

  Caithness

  2·08

  0·90

  1·04

  1·15

  1·71

  1·52

  1·75

  2·38

  2·40

  2·53

  2·72

  Inverness

  0·74

  1·91

  0·83

  1·94

  1·95

  2·35

  1·33

  2·77

  2·70

  2·03

  1·10

  Lochaber

  0·92

  0·70

  1·31

  1·74

  1·11

  1·95

  2·08

  2·52

  2·82

  3·33

  2·27

  Nairn

  0·92

  1·38

  1·15

  1·11

  1·63

  1·86

  0·06

  4·61

  2·96

  0·31

  3·48

  234 235

  Authorities

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Ross and Cromarty

  1·24

  0·74

  1·99

  1·13

  1·65

  2·09

  1·70

  3·79

  3·54

  2·36

  0·91

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1·94

  1·89

  1·97

  0·24

  0·93

  1·14

  2·21

  3·60

  4·71

  2·04

  0·68

  Sutherland

  1·06

  0·97

  1·37

  0·26

  1·37

  1·46

  2·43

  3·25

  4·53

  2·62

  2·37

  East Lothian

  0·86

  1·29

  0·97

  1·35

  1·57

  1·60

  2·11

  2·13

  0·52

  0·36

  0·59

  Edinburgh

  1·25

  (0·18)

  0·03

  1·84

  1·93

  4·12

  3·52

  4·31

  1·43

  1·60

  3·27

  Midlothian

  0·87

  1·07

  0·92

  0·96

  1·01

  1·09

  (0·00)

  0·11

  0·21

  2·00

  1·09

  West Lothian

  0·50

  0·80

  0·85

  0·90

  1·40

  1·80

  1·02

  1·07

  0·92

  1·55

  2·61

  Argyll and Bute

  (0·15)

  2·03

  (0·01)

  0·49

  1·56

  1·74

  2·35

  1·92

  2·88

  3·09

  2·60

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0·58

  0·72

  2·06

  2·35

  1·40

  1·74

  2·12

  2·61

  3·23

  0·94

  (0·15)

  Clydebank

  1·00

  2·15

  2·85

  2·02

  1·94

  3·75

  2·81

  1·56

  (0·51)

  1·46

  1·01

  Clydesdale

  1·01

  1·45

  0·87

  0·83

  1·75

  1·74

  1·36

  2·18

  1·30

  1·41

  1·21

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0·49

  2·13

  2·01

  1·67

  1·50

  1·85

  1·35

  1·94

  0·91

  1·66

  0·13

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0·50

  0·72

  1·04

  1·46

  1·06

  1·66

  1·36

  2·60

  2·26

  1·79

  0·96

  Cunninghame

  0·01

  0·00

  1·65

  2·51

  1·78

  1·63

  1·93

  1·92

  1·85

  2·18

  2·17

  Dumbarton

  0·81

  0·01

  2·29

  2·93

  3·46

  3·08

  2·85

  1·77

  2·21

  1·93

  2·28

  East Kilbride

  1·01

  1·05

  2·06

  0·98

  0·93

  2·09

  2·06

  1·01

  1·74

  0·82

  5·80

  Eastwood

  0·50

  0·48

  0·44

  0·50

  1·46

  1·19

  1·49

  1·51

  2·96

  0·67

  0·66

  Glasgow

  0·01

  1·02

  1·96

  2·02

  2·55

  3·98

  2·86

  2·78

  1·85

  2·13

  0·71

  Hamilton

  0·70

  0·92

  1·85

  2·06

  0·79

  2·25

  1·47

  1·68

  2·20

  2·15

  1·61

  Inverclyde

  0·77

  2·21

  1·11

  0·92

  1·05

  2·48

  2·32

  2·27

  2·49

  2·01

  1·00

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0·51

  1·01

  1·83

  1·43

  0·63

  1·74

  1·29

  1·88

  0·07

  1·38

  0·58

  Kyle and Carrick

  0·81

  1·76

  1·19

  1·01

  1·27

  0·91

  2·17

  1·49

  1·00

  5·06

  1·90

  Monklands

  0·00

  2·02

  2·35

  1·82

  1·45

  1·83

  1·47

  2·56

  0·86

  2·00

  1·71

  Motherwell

  1·00

  1·35

  1·20

  1·64

  0·93

  2·26

  1·31

  1·11

  1·33

  2·40

  2·08

  Renfrew

  0·48

  1·00

  1·69

  1·49

  0·92

  2·81

  1·97

  1·98

  1·77

  1·96

  1·47

  Strathkelvin

  0·88

  1·05

  2·57

  1·12

  1·93

  0·88

  1·33

  1·87

  1·55

  2·23

  2·30

  Angus

  0·97

  0·96

  1·11

  0·80

  (0·10)

  1·28

  1·04

  1·07

  (0·11)

  1·11

  0·94

  Dundee

  0·73

  1·02

  1·81

  1·98

  3·50

  4·08

  4·06

  2·96

  2·23

  1·62

  0·65

  Perth and Kinross

  (0·00)

  1·16

  1·00

  0·95

  0·75

  1·21

  2·33

  1·61

  2·34

  0·82

  1·00

  Orkney Islands

  0·88

  2·16

  1·33

  1·50

  1·07

  3·34

  2·21

  3·00

  2·38

  (0·40)

  1·94

  Shetland Islands

  (0·05)

  2·91

  1·53

  0·96

  2·28

  0·87

  1·61

  4·34

  3·87

  0·87

  1·30

  Western Isles

  1·84

  0·59

  1·02

  1·03

  1·44

  0·75

  2·75

  6·57

  1·85

  2·49

  0·81

  SCOTLAND

  0·60

  1·09

  1·44

  1·59

  1·71

  2·53

  2·11

  2·19

  1·53

  1·86

  1·28

  SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION/SCOTTISH HOMES

  Annual average rent increase

  1·10

  1·17

  1·56

  1·49

  1·74

  1·86

  2·93

  2·92

  2·41

  2·62

  2·07

  Note: Rent reductions in brackets.

  Red Squirrels
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by county the current estimate of the red squirrel population; and what were the figures.(a) five years and (b) 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Information on the red squirrel population is not available by county. The estimated total population of red squirrel in Scotland is 121,000 but: there are no comparable figures for five and 10 years ago. The red squirrel is fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Scottish Natural Heritage is organising a conference of parties interested in squirrel management in Scotland in October of this year.

  Strathclyde Police
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the costs of funding Strathclyde police will be apportioned to constituent local authorities in future years; what will be the basis of calculation of contribution from each authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The amalgamation scheme for the new Strathclyde joint police board following local government reorganisation will specify how the payment by the constituent authorities of the expenditure incurred by the board will be apportioned. My right hon. Friend will consult the authorities, before 236
  making the scheme, to seek their views on how costs should be apportioned, and will take full account of their preferences before making the amalgamation scheme.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the total value of revenue lost to local authorities by non-payment of non-domestic rates; if he will publish a table showing the value of unpaid non-domestic rates for each(a) regional and (b) district authority in cash terms for the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  In calculating the amounts which levying authorities have to contribute to the non-domestic rating pool, the Scottish Office Environment Department assumes that authorities will write off 1 per cent. of non-domestic rate income annually. Information about the level of actual non-payment in individual authority areas is not held centrally. However, local authorities do not lose any revenue as a result of non-payment of non-domestic rates as within each authority's overall level of aggregate external finance—which comprises non-domestic rate income, revenue support grant and specific grants—any shortfall of non-domestic rate income is made up with revenue support grant.

  Quarries
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the specific powers and duties of(a) strategic planning authorities, (b) local planning authorities, (c) environmental health authorities, (d) Her Majesty's inspector of pollution and (e) other public bodies in relation to control of blasting and operational activities at quarries in Scotland; what plans he has to seek additional powers for any of these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Planning authorities in Scotland—regional, islands and district councils—have powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 to grant planning permission in respect of, inter alia, quarrying proposals: in so doing, they may impose conditions restricting operational practices including, for example, times of blasting, suppression of noise, dust and so on.

  Environmental health authorities in Scotland—islands and district councils—have general powers under part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and section 16 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 to control noise nuisance. They also have powers under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to control dust and other emissions to the atmosphere.

  Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate has no specific powers or duties in relation to blasting or other operational activities at quarries in Scotland. The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for making arrangements for the enforcement of health and safety legislation at quarries in Scotland. Its powers and duties are set out in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and other relevant statutory provisions.

  My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the powers available to these bodies are sufficient, and has no plans, at present, to seek to add to them.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the remit of the Homepoint group set up by Scottish Homes; and if he will make a statement on the progress of its work.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Homepoint is the result of action initiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to invite Scottish Homes to evaluate the quality and availability of housing information and advice. The remit of Homepoint is to improve the quality and scope of such advice in Scotland, working through local authorities, voluntary providers and the private sector. I understand that Homepoint has just issued its third newsletter and that this describes progress made to date; copies can be obtained from Scottish Homes.

  Councillors (Allowances)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take account of the proposal of the Secretary of State for the Environment on councillors' allowances; and if he will produce a consultative paper on increasing payments to councillors in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office Environment Department will shortly issue a consultation paper on possible changes to the new system of councillors'238
  allowances introduced in April 1991. This will take account of the current Department of the Environment consultation exercise.

  Public Sector Housing
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much subsidy was directed towards(a) council housing and (b) other public sector housing (i) in the latest year for which he has information and (ii) in 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: In 1979–80 direct subsidies to council housing through housing support grant and rate fund contributions amounted to £286·3 million, compared with £36·1 million in 1993–94. In 1979–80, subsidies to other Scottish public sector housing amounted to £64·9 million, compared with £21·3 million in 1993–94. The reduction reflects the Government's policy of moving away from indiscriminate general subsidies.

  Assistance is now targeted on tenants in greatest need through the housing benefit system. Housing benefit payments made to Scottish public sector tenants in 1993–94 totalled nearly £600 million.

TRANSPORT

  Driving Tests
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to privatise the Driving Standards Authority's driver and rider testing functions.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 27 May 1993 at columns 683–84 in which I announced that, following the review of the Driving Standards Agency's framework document, I had decided that these functions should continue to be conducted by an executive agency of the Department of Transport. The position will be reviewed in three to four years time.

  Vessel Registration Requirements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received up to May for the repeal of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 requirement for British officers. on British-registered vessels.

  Mr. Norris
  There have been 50 responses to the consultation document setting out these proposals.

  Railway Property (Hunt Trespass)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to prevent cases of hunt trespass on railway lines; and if he will issue warnings to hunts for dangerous trespass;

  (2) what plans he has to issue warnings to hunts involved in incidents of hunt trespass on railway lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. The prevention of hunt trespass on railway lines is a matter for Railtrack and the British Transport police. The BTP issues warnings in accordance with the Attorney-General's guidelines.

  Traffic Forecasts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all past, current and proposed research commissioned or to be commissioned for or on behalf of the advisory panel on the review of the methodology of the traffic forecasts; and when he intends to publish this research.

  Mr. Key
  No research has been commissioned for, or on behalf of, the advisory group. The Department has in progress several pieces of research particularly relevant to traffic forecasting, listed in my answer to the earlier question of the hon. Member on 23 May at column 53. The Department may consider letting more research on the advice of the group. No decision has yet been taken on the publication of this research.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations underlay his decision to include on the advisory panel for the review of traffic forecasts methodology representatives nominated by road lobby groups but not representatives nominated by environmental groups.

  Mr. Key
  The members of the advisory group were selected by the Department of Transport for the expertise that they could contribute to the forecasting process. As I said in my answer to an earlier question by the hon. Member on 23 May at column 53, the members do not represent any interest or group.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the national road traffic forecasts will next be revised.

  Mr. Key
  The national road traffic forecasts are kept continuously under review, and will be revised if and when the need becomes apparent.

  Efficiency Targets
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the reports clue on 10 June produced by heads of departments for the 20 per cent. efficiency targets for each of the next two years.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No. These are internal management documents.

  Disclosure of Information
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many cases the Data Protection Act 1984 was breached in the instance of the DVLA releasing information on the owners of vehicles to community charge collectors.

  Mr. Key
  DVLA is not aware of any instances in which the Data Protection Act has been breached as a result of releasing vehicle keeper details to local authorities.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in the last financial year the DVLA gave information on the owners of vehicles to community charge collectors in Scotland.

  Mr. Key
  In the last financial year, DVLA processed more than 5 million inquiries from the police and local authorities. Information on the number of inquiries by separate subject and local authority could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 108, regarding departmental employees, if he will give the total cost of employing each grade of staff.

  Mr. Norris
  The table shows total salary costs for each grade and grade equivalent at April 1993 expressed as an annual figure. The salary costs comprise basic pay, allowances, Superannuation and national insurance contribution

  Grade

  Total salary cost £

  Grade 1

  108,598

  Grade 2

  320,797

  Grade 3

  1,652,525

  Grade 4

  1,018,554

  Grade 5

  5,901,718

  Grade 6

  7,013,177

  Grade 7

  27,275,123

  SEO

  29,127,629

  HEO

  31,343,989

  EO

  71,343,989

  AO

  55,932,859

  AA

  34,451,713

  Traffic commissioners

  374,136

  Costs do not include 1993 pay settlements as these were not paid until after 1 April. They reflect all paid staff, including those working part time.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what restrictions currently exist on flights to and from London City airport; and what is the current number of scheduled flights to and from London City airport.

  Mr. Norris
  The 1991 granting of planning permission for development at London City airport was subject to a number of conditions on the use of the airport. These include limits of 40 air transport movements per day at weekends, bank holidays and public holidays, 130 per day n other days and 36,500 air transport movements per calendar year. There are further restrictions which are expressed in terms of noise levels of aircraft.

  In the 12 months to 31 March 1994, there were some 12,100 scheduled flights to and from London City airport. Currently on a typical weekday there are some 66 scheduled flights—Source: London City airport.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of the joint air miss working group reports on the air misses in the vicinity of Humberside airport on 23 May 1991 and 13 October 1992.

  Mr. Norris
  My officials have made arrangements with the Civil Aviation Authority, for copies of the documents mentioned, to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The hon. Member may also wish to know that with immediate effect, further copies of the quarterly published, collated reports of the joint air miss working group will be placed in the Library.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the role and function of his Department's Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment.

  Mr. Key
  The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport to advise him on any significant changes proposed in trunk road appraisal methods.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the reports his Department has commissioned from the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment in the last 10 years; what was the date of publication for each; and if he will place each of the reports in the Library.

  Mr. Key
  In the last 10 years the Department of Transport has commissioned three reports from the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, as well as asking for advice on various specific trunk road appraisal issues. Two reports have been published; "Urban Road Appraisal" dated June 1986, and "Assessing the Environmental Impact of Road Schemes" dated March 1992. A copy of each has been placed in the Library. The third, "Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic" which has recently been submitted to the Secretary of State, will be published when a response has been prepared. A copy of the report and Government response will be placed in the Library at that time.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what communications Her Majesty's Government have had with the European Commission regarding road schemes in the last five years.

  Mr. Key
  The Government have had many and various communications with the European Commission about road schemes during the last five years. A comprehensive analysis could not be undertaken without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual running cost of his Department's Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment; and from which subheads of which votes these funds are taken.

  Mr. Key
  The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment running costs in financial year 1993–94 were £05,348·57; taken from the Highways, Safety and Traffic Administration subhead of class VI, vote 1, National roads, England.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the current members of his Department's Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment.

  Mr. Key
  The terms of appointment of the members of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment ended on submission of the report, "Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic" in May 1994. A new committee has yet to be appointed.

  Membership of the most recent committee was:

  Chairman

  Mr. D. Wood QC, Principal of St Hugh's College Oxford

  242
  Vice-chairman

  Mr. R. H. Stewart, Independent Planning Consultant

  Members

  Dr. D. Coombe, Director, The MVA Consultancy

  Dr. P. Goodwin, Director of the Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford

  Professor P. Hill, Director of the Transport Operations
  Research Group, University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  Mr. D. Hutchinson, County Surveyor, Dorset County Council

  Mr. P. Mackie, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Leeds

  Miss A. M. Lees, Environmental Adviser. Formerly
  Controller of Transportation and Development, GLC

  Mr. M. E. G. Taylor, Chairman of Eric R. Taylor (Services) Ltd.

  Road Schemes (Batz)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures he has taken to ascertain whether increase in volumes of traffic resulting from the improvements to the A46 from Upper Swainswick to Tormarton, together with the Swainswick Batheaston bypass will cause pollution in the centre of Bath to exceed European Union limits;

  (2) what are his Department's predictions for increases in numbers of vehicles per day, through Bath once the Upper Swainswick to Tormarton road scheme has been completed;

  (3) what is the current cost benefit analysis of the Swainswick section of the Swainswick-Batheaston bypass.

  Mr. Key
  These questions are operational matters for the Highways Agency. The chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, is writing to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Don Foster, dated 22 June 1994:
  Trunk roads around Bath
  A4/A46 Batheaston/Swainswick bypass and
  Upper Swainswick-Tormarton improvement
  I am writing in response to your three recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Transport about trunk road schemes near Bath. These are matters for which the Highways Agency is now responsible. Perhaps I may take your three questions in turn.
  Question 2648—What is the current cost benefit analysis of the Swainswick section of the Swainswick/Batheaston Bypass?
  Answer—The benefit to cost ratio for the Batheaston/Swainswick Bypass is 1.32:1. However, there are no figures available for just the Swainswick section as the analyses undertaken were concerned with the whole of the scheme.
  Question 2647—What are the predictions for increases in numbers of vehicles per day, through Bath, once the Upper Swainswick to Tormarton road scheme has been complete?
  Answer—The trunk road improvements will improve access to Bath, but through north/south traffic must still cross Cleveland Bridge. The amount of traffic with a destination in Bath is unlikely to change but some redistribution on roads within Bath may occur. It will continue to be limited by the traffic restraint measures imposed by the Highway Authority and the number of parking spaces provided in the city. In the longer term we see the A36 East of Bath to Beckington scheme in combination with Batheaston and Swainswick bypasses helping through traffic to avoid Bath.
  Question 2646—What measures have been taken to ascertain whether increase in volumes of traffic resulting from the improvements to the A46 from Upper Swainswick to Tormarton, together with the Swainswick/Batheaston bypass will cause pollution in the centre of Bath to exceed European Union limits?
  Answer—A traffic study has indicated up to 600 vehicles per day may transfer from other routes within Bath to the London

  243
  Road West as indicated in Mr. Nutt's letter of 28 March 1994. This will have no measurable effect on pollution in the centre of Bath.
  Construction work on the Batheaston-Swainswick bypass started in March this year. The work is programmed for completion in 1996. Development of the Swainswick Tormarton improvement is at a comparatively early stage, and is subject to the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of funds.

  Railways (Disabled Access)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers and duties he has to provide, or encourage the provision of, adequate access for disabled people to railway stations and rolling stock throughout the United Kingdom; what plans he has to seek new powers and/or duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I attach great importance to making provision for disabled people travelling on the railway. The Railways Act 1993 imposes a specific duty on the Rail Regulator to have particular regard to the interests of disabled people and requires him to draw up and encourage the adoption and implementation of a code of practice for protecting the interests of disabled users of rail passenger services and stations. As a condition of their licence, all operators of passenger services or stations are required to establish and comply with a statement of policy and detailed arrangements, procedures, services and other benefits to protect the interests of disabled people, taking account of the regulator's code of practice. The policy and arrangements have to be approved by the regulator.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Transport when he next plans to meet representatives of the privatised rail industry in Scotland to discuss the lack of access for disabled people to the premises and rolling stock at Gilmour Street station in Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to meet representatives of the railway industry in Scotland to discuss this specific issue. Much of our present railway infrastructure was constructed at a time when less attention was paid to the needs of disabled people. The existence of a code of practice, to be published shortly by the Rail Regulator, will mean that when new facilities are being designed, or old facilities refurbished, there will be a statutory code to which the designers can look to ensure that disabled passengers' needs are not forgotten. A sensible input at an early stage in the design can make all the difference and be of benefit to all passengers.

  Harbours (Waste Disposal)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what means the Government will introduce to encourage port and harbour authorities to evaluate and set an integrated port fee which includes an appropriate charge for the disposal of waste such as oily waste, garbage and unwanted chemicals.
  244
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce integrated harbour fees incorporating fees for handling oily wastes in order to encourage ships to use port waste-handling facilities.

  Mr. Norris
  The Marine Safety Agency is currently undertaking a comprehensive survey of the current provision of reception facilities in United Kingdom ports. Analysis of the survey results will indicate the extent to which charges for the use of reception facilities are integrated into harbour fees. Based on this information, the Government will decide what further action, if any, needs to be taken.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the United Kingdom Government will seek through the International Maritime Organisation a requirement that when garbage is discharged from a ship at shore an entry is placed in the ship's log and that such entries are subject to checking.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom is taking an active role at IMO in the development of shipboard waste management plans and record keeping procedures for the discharge of garbage. Record books for the disposal of garbage will, when they are introduced, be subject to checks by port state control inspectors to ensure that the regulations are being complied with.

  Great Yarmouth Harbour
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has examined the need for an outer harbour at Great Yarmouth; and what plans he has to secure EU funding for such a harbour.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 June 1994]: Last year, as part of the study by the European Commission of trans-European transport networks, my Department invited ports to submit proposals for projects which fulfilled certain criteria designed to identify projects of Community interest. The Great Yarmouth port authority put forward a proposal for an outer harbour which appeared to meet the criteria. My Department therefore forwarded this proposal to the Commission, along with more than 100 other port projects, but without prejudice to any European or United Kingdom approvals which might be required, whether for statutory, planning or financial purposes.

  Although the Commission initially identified the Great Yarmouth proposal, with many other port projects, as potentially of common interest, the Commission's present position on financial support for ports projects generally, or for individual projects, is not resolved. Nor have I yet decided whether to support the project for EU funding.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the likely impact of rural post office closures on total car use in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  No such assessment has been made.

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

Mental Health: Security of Patients
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the security of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the level of security should be consistent with the danger patients may present to themselves or other people. This is generally a matter for the clinical judgment of the responsible doctor in co-operation with the clinical team. A patient who is subject to a restriction order or direction under Section 41 or 49 of the Act may only be discharged, given leave of absence or transferred to another hospital with the consent of the Home Secretary.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are fewer secure and lockable wards in mental hospitals these days? The Reed Report recommends that there should be over 1,000 such wards: there are only just over 600. Does my noble friend agree also that the late Lord Butler's committee suggested that there should be 2,000 places available in regional secure units and the Glancy Report recom-mended that there should be 1,000? Altogether, there are not nearly enough secure facilities available. Does my noble friend agree that that results in the release of people when they should not be so released?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to quote the Glancy Report and the Butler Report. The discrepancies between the two figures arise because the Butler Report took into account the numbers of people needing to be moved from the courts and prisons. That accounts for the difference between the figures of 1,000 and 2,000 beds. Successive governments have accepted the recommendations in the Glancy Report. It is fair to say that although we accepted those recommendations as long ago as 1974, five years later not one of those beds had opened despite the funding being available for them. Now the figure stands at 635 beds and we have a dynamic building programme which will ensure that 1,200 places are provided by 1996.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, what procedures are followed on the release of people who were detained under the Mental Health Act? Are they on their own once they reach the gate of the hospital? If they come originally from another city, are they given a warrant or guided to the social services department which can offer them help? Problems arise because some people are completely lost after years of detention. I support fully
264
the fact that people should be released or given leave of absence. But the procedures do not meet the needs of individuals who were detained.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there has been a great deal of anxiety about: patients discharged from mental institutions. Because of that, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wishes to introduce supervision registers so that those who are discharged from hospital will have allocated to them a responsible professional person who will maintain contact with them in the community. In May this year we issued discharge guidance to ensure that the people who are discharged from hospital are well enough, have somewhere to go to and are well looked after. Therefore, there has been a problem, but I believe that the action that is now being taken—although there will be need for some legislation—will correct some of the difficulties being experienced.
Lord Renton: My Lords, has my noble friend any figures to enable us to tell what proportion of those really difficult patients are mentally handicapped and, therefore, incurable, and to what extent they suffer from mental illness, which is very often curable?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that we have overcome many of the long-term problems associated with the mentally handicapped. That has been due partly to the success of mentally handicapped registers. Therefore, that is something that we shall introduce for mentally ill people. It is impossible to give exact figures of those who are mentally handicapped and those who are mentally ill. Very often mentally ill people do recover but then they relapse. Therefore, it is a very difficult area in which to keep accurate figures. However, I believe that those who are mentally handicapped are now looked after better than they have ever been before.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, will the Minister accept that much of what has been said this afternoon reflects the debate that took: place in your Lordships' House on the subject of community care for people suffering from mental illness? Those issues arose in particular in relation to the Jonathan Zito case. Noble Lords on all sides of the House expressed the view in that debate that the actions taken by her right honourable friend, which the Minister has described, were not sufficient. Is the Minister aware that my honourable friend Mr. Ian McCartney, who works on the subject of mental health in the other place, wrote recently to Mr. John Bowis asking for specific assurances with regard to the eight urgent recommendations made by the Mental Health Act Commissioners and the recommendations by the Select Committee on Health of another place calling for much more stringent action than the Minister has suggested?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may take first the report of the Select Committee to which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave evidence in December. We shall be issuing our response to that report this afternoon. We have also issued guidance on hospital discharge; introduced, from 1st

265
April, supervision registers; and increased the mental illness specific grant to £36 million this year with a commitment to continue it for a further three years. We have given grants of £500,000 to support 37 best-practice projects; have strengthened the monitoring of the care programme approach; have taken specific initiatives in London; and, nationwide, have given £2.4 million to voluntary organisations working in the field. I assure the House that a great deal is going on. I have mentioned only eight of the initiatives. There are another four, but I shall not bore your Lordships with the details this afternoon.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what advice would the Minister give a prison doctor who has written to me stating that he was unable to find a place in a secure hospital for a prisoner under his charge who, he believed, needed to be accommodated in such a unit? What should happen in such a case where there is an argument between two different areas as regards who is responsible for such a person? How would that prison doctor having to accept continued responsibility for a patient who, he thought, might be a danger to himself or other prisoners, be able to get around such a dilemma?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the responsibility is quite clear. However, if it is being fudged I should certainly like to take up the case personally to ensure that the responsibility is placed on the right person. We have set procedures that should be followed with people who have been discharged from prison.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry. I did not make myself clear. The person concerned was a long-term prisoner. He was in prison and the prison doctor considered that he needed treatment or examination in a secure psychiatric unit which was not available within the prison.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, again, the position is quite clear. It would be the unit nearest to that prison which would take responsibility for such a person. If there is confusion in the matter, I shall be happy to deal with it on a personal basis.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Minister's replies have been most helpful so far. However, can she be more specific and give the timing as regards the implementation of the proposals and the legislation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, like other departments, my department will be pressing its case very strongly for legislation. We feel it to be most important to tighten up some of the current procedures. However, as noble Lords will be aware, it is in the hands of the business managers. As regards the other aspects of the recommendations, we have set aside the funds that are necessary and are working towards implement-ing our programme as soon as possible.

Small Businesses: Prompt Payment by Government
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in ensuring prompt payment to small businesses by government departments.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, instructions to government departments are that payments should be made within the agreed credit period or within 30 days where no credit period has been agreed. Further, government departments are required to monitor their payment times and to publish the results in their annual reports.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, is he aware that there has not been very much change in the situation since 1980 for small businesses? In the circumstances, does he feel that perhaps the appointment of a commercial debt ombudsman might help solve the problem?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in the White Paper on competitiveness published a few weeks ago we announced a number of new measures which will go some way towards helping the small firms which suffer from the problem of late payment. As with all government departments, the introduction of the requirement for them to publish their results will, I believe, go a long way towards solving any problems which may exist.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, government departments are notorious for their late payments to small businesses in particular, and some of those businesses rely on immediate payment. Can the Minister say whether there has been any improvement in the situation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, both I and the Government regard late payment most seriously. We believe that the situation within the Government has improved substantially. The announcement having been made in the White Paper, there is no get-out clause for government departments which do not pay up on time.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, can the Government not pressurise local authorities to pay their debts more speedily than they do at present? I ask that question because many small business men carry out a considerable amount of work for local authorities.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government are leading by example by abiding by the CBI prompt payers code: they are stating in their reports whether they have abided by the code and are publishing their arrangements for dealing with late payment complaints. It is hoped that that example will be followed by other agencies and local authorities.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the banks are often the toughest people in this

267
respect? They do not take cognisance of the fact that public authorities owe a great deal of money to small businesses. They put pressure on the latter for quite small sums of money while sending hundreds of millions of pounds to very uncertain payers overseas. Does my noble friend agree that the banks should be pressurised to take some notice of what is good credit in public hands?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, whenever I meet senior bank staff I always take the opportunity to remind them of their responsibilities towards their small firm customers.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I appreciate what the Minister has said, which has been helpful, but will he clothe those general answers by being a little more specific? Can he give some indication, without being too precise, of the volume of complaints in relation to government departments failing to honour the precept which the Minister has announced, say over the past three years? Has there been a marked reduction during that period?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a perfectly good question. The trouble in the past has been that there was no central collation of complaints. Now under the terms of the White Paper government departments will be obliged to publicise how they have dealt with the problem of late payment and in the future we shall have a far better opportunity to consider that performance.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the problem as regards big business, and probably government departments, is that when a small business complains of late payment, the business, or the government department, which owes the money will make certain that payment is made immediately but staff in middle management will not then award another contract to the small firm which was owed money because it has caused trouble?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no small firm that complains about the Government in that regard should fear that it will be treated in that way.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is there any process by which the government departments concerned can be punished if they do not reach the standards my noble friend is calling for? When will a Permanent Secretary be sacked because his department has not met these standards?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it would be severely embarrassing for a Permanent Secretary to have to accept an annual report which demonstrated that his department had not met the high standards set down under the CBI prompt payment code.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that for small companies late payment is a jolly sight more than embarrassing—it can be an absolute disaster as far as they are concerned? By the time statistics have been collated it will be far too late to help those small companies.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend, but I can give her some comfort. Successive reports from a variety of independent consultants indicate that the late payment problem in this country is improving.

Acquired Rights Directive: Employee Protection
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What efforts they are making to secure the amendment of the 1977 acquired rights directive of the European Union, designed to protect: the pay and conditions of employees transferred from the public service to the private sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government welcome the fact that the European Commission is reviewing this directive under the principles of subsidiarity. It is now apparent that the directive has a very broad scope and that its effects can be damaging to employment.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not a fact that the Government's prime aim in privatising public enterprises, or contracting out public services to private bidders, has been to worsen the conditions of work, lower pay, and create a means of making staff redundant: in the enterprises so transferred? Is not this directive some barrier to the protection of workers' rights in the hands of this Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not agree with the first part of what the noble Baroness had to say. As regards the second part of what she had to say, the directive was agreed, as the noble Baroness will be aware, in 1977 by a Labour Government. It was aimed at protecting employees' rights on corporate takeovers and mergers. I further would have to say that the last Labour Government's draft proposal to implement the acquired rights directive actually specifically excluded charitable bodies, government departments, local authorities, and so on, from the scope of their draft TUPE regulations. I think therefore it is somewhat hypocritical for the party opposite to criticise the Government's implementation of that directive when it was Labour who passed the defective directive on redundancy legislation and when its TUPE proposals would clearly have excluded all the public sector.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, when will the Government support: directives such as the Vredeling directive? The Vredeling directive was opposed by this Government. The directive made provision for consultation and for workers' involve-ment. Is this not a very bad example to set as regards the rest of the EU—that we, of all countries, block these directives if we can?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is another matter. As regards the revisions to this directive, the noble

269
Baroness will be aware that the Commission agreed at the Brussels Council to bring forward proposals to amend that directive. Unanimity is now required to amend that directive. We believe that there is now a consensus, particularly following a case such as the Schmidt case in Germany. There is a consensus among member states for excluding contracting out.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: But is it not a fact that it was the Tory Government who in 1981 translated the directive into law in this country, and has not the Government been rebuked by the European Court for failing to carry out the directive, even recently? Has not a case been won by workers recently in the Court of Appeal which has given them rights this Government are dedicated to destroy?
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords; but it was this Government who went further than the last Labour Government. As I made clear, the last Labour Government intended to exclude the entire public sector. The noble Baroness cannot get round that. We went further in 1981. As regards the case that the noble Baroness referred to in the European Court of Justice, as I made clear the other day, we lost on only one minor point. All the other matters have been resolved. That one minor point concerned only consultation rights and was a fairly narrow legal point.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, reverting to what the Minister has just said, what steps are the Government prepared to take to ensure that there is a statutory system for workers' consultation in the light of the decision of the European Court of Justice?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously we will consider those points; but I have to make quite clear to the noble Baroness that it does not in fact extend to trade union rights. In fact it extends consultation rights beyond trade unions.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first, may I say to both the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, that it was a most enjoyable exchange. I hope I may pursue one point with regard to the European Court judgment on the admittedly narrow issue of consultation rights. Do the Government propose to bring forward legislation, or do they hope to amend the directive along the lines the Minister suggested?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made quite clear in my earlier response, we will be considering this matter in due course.

European Democratic Group: Membership
2.56 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider the association of the Conservative Party delegation to the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly with that from the Italian National Alliance Party to be appropriate.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the European Democratic Group to which the Conservative delegation belong is a respected and influential grouping of centre-Right Members of Parliament from all over Europe. British Conservative MPs have not sponsored the membership of the Italian MPs in question, nor do they control membership of the European Democratic Group.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for that reply. I acknowledge that governments have to deal with members of parties of whom they may not approve; but is it necessary —as I understand is the case—that the Conservative delegation should col-laborate with a party which regards Mussolini as the greatest statesman of the 20th century?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think it was only the leader of that party who made those statements. I have to say that we utterly condemn—
Noble Lords: Only!
Lord Henley: I would like to go on to say that it was the leader of that party but not a member of the new Italian Government, which does obviously contain members of that particular party. The Conservative Party does not seek alliances with parties such as that: its ideology is completely and utterly different from ours and I would repudiate its particular beliefs. But as regards the European Democratic Group, it is a group of some 77 different members, 10 of whom are Conservative members. I think to renounce our membership of that group purely because of the membership of those two would be something of an overreaction; and I do have to say it is not actually clear quite how those two Italian MPs did become members of that group.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is quite easy to find out exactly what these parties do? In the case of the Liberal group in the Council of Europe, we were faced with an application from a group calling itself the Liberal Democrats. The leader of that group was called Zhirinovsky, and he demonstrated quite clearly that his views were not liberal and so we were able to reject him. Will the noble Lord note, when he replies, that I have my hearing aid in?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, or the noble Lord's group, would have accepted members of the Literal Democrats? I do have to say that it is not a matter in our hands; but I do not think, as the

271
question seems to imply, that resigning from that group would be an appropriate reaction to the membership of those two particular MPs.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord indulge in a little historical introspection in relation to his own party? I know that it was before his time, but does he agree that before the last war pungent observations were made by the party of which he is a distinguished member in support of Signor Mussolini? Immediately before the last war, the leaders of his party gave Mussolini consistent support. Will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that we shall not have a repetition, and that it will be unnecessary to refer to the matter further?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that it is somewhat ridiculous to say that we should start picking and choosing with whom we do business. It is quite ridiculous for the party opposite to say that if they were in government they would have absolutely no dealings with neo-fascists. Governments of any persuasion always have to recognise and do business with fairly unsavoury regimes, as governments always have and always will. Governments of the party opposite have done so in the past.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this could be a very embarrassing exchange if it continues for very long, because one could then start probing into the political origins of the late Sir Oswald Mosley?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my history is somewhat weak, but I seem to remember that he was a member of a variety of different parties before he ended up where he did. The noble Lord is quite right to draw the attention of the House to that particular analogy.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister serious when he says that one has no options in picking and choosing one's friends in the Council of Europe or the European Parliament? Does he feel that Italian neo-fascists should be welcomed in both places with approbation by members of his party? Is he aware that, as I am proud to say—and I think that I speak also for my noble friend Lord Richard during his mandate—in the four years during which I was a commissioner I never once spoke to an Italian or French fascist?
Lord Henley: My Lords, first, I ought to remind the noble Lord that while we may not like its views, that party was democratically elected by the people of Italy. Secondly, the noble Lord has misrepresented what I said. I made clear that governments have to do business with fairly unsavoury people on occasion. It is thoroughly irresponsible of the party opposite and spokesmen of the party opposite to say that they would have no dealings with neo-fascists or neo-fascist governments, when in the past they have dealt with thoroughly unsavoury regimes of both the Left and the Right.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Oh dear!
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I do not think that the Minister listened to the supplementary question which I put to him, when I made a clear distinction between the relations between governments and the relations between political parties, so to some extent his answer is totally irrelevant. We are not asking the Conservative Party to resign; we are asking the Conservative Party not to accept a neo-fascist party as; a member of its group.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord listened to my first response. I made it quite clear that Conservative MEP members of the group have not sponsored the membership of the Italian MPs in question, nor do they control the membership of the European Democratic Group.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may have another try! I wanted to ask my noble friend the Minister what is the object of sitting in groups anyway. What is it in aid of?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are all members of parties. It is up to the individual members of the Council of Europe to decide for themselves, and not a matter on which I would like to speak, as to why they would like to sit in groups.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is it not a matter for the Members of the European Parliament and nothing whatever to do with the Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that I ought to help the noble Lord. It is not related to the European Parliament; it is related to the Council of Europe, which is composed of delegates from all the member state parliaments.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord asserted that these neo-fascists were elected. Is it not a fact that Hitler and Mussolini were also democratically elected?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I made it quite clear that we do not in any way endorse the ideology of the party to which we are referring. Nevertheless, those people have been elected by the Italian people. The party opposite implied that they would have no dealings with members of a government from that party. To take that attitude is grossly and utterly irresponsible.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend remember a more puerile exchange of questions and answers than we have just been having?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we still have three minutes available. There is plenty of time to take this matter further. Is the noble Lord, Lord Henley, aware that some of us are concerned that he is confusing the issue? He says, quite rightly, that governments of all kinds have to be dealt with. But that is not what the Question asks. On this side of the House, we understand that one has to deal with all kinds of government, elected or unelected. However, the Question asks whether the Government are in favour of Conservative

273
Party members of the Council of Europe supporting this fascist group becoming a member of the same grouping as themselves. Are the Government in favour of that, or are they not? Do not confuse the issue this time.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should be the last one to confuse the issue. I have not confused the issue at all. I have made our position absolutely clear. It is not clear how these two members became members of the group. It is not in the control of the Conservative delegation as to whether they are members of the group. I added that I think that the party opposite has been irresponsible in saying that it would have no contact or dealings with neo-fascist members of a government of a friendly country.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right: the Conservative Party members do not control the entry of the neo-fascists into that group. Is he also aware that they can leave the group?
Lord Henley: My Lords, again, I dealt with that point earlier. I did not think that that would be an appropriate response to the addition of two members to a group of some 87 members.

Job Creation in a Technological Age
3.6 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote rose Viscount Caldecote rose to call attention to the problems of job creation in a technological age; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I am glad that the two Motions on the Order Paper today are being debated together, for that enables me to concentrate on the home front, leaving the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to cover the wider canvas of Europe.
Speaking in May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer reiterated his determination to maintain low inflation so as to preserve jobs. He also said that unemployment must be the main preoccupation of economic policy-makers in the 1990s. A previous Chancellor said, rather rashly perhaps, that high unemployment is a price worth paying for low inflation.
Those comments imply a paradox: high inflation destroys jobs and must be avoided at any cost; part of that cost is high unemployment. Therefore, it appears that whether we have high or low inflation, job creation will be inadequate.
The solution is to achieve the maximum rate of growth consistent with low inflation—the only base on which sustainable prosperity can be built. Therefore, the Government's achievement in controlling inflation to well below 4 per cent. must be applauded.
In the period 1983 to 1993 the average growth rate of real GDP was 2.3 per cent. per annum, but unemployment rose slightly during that period to 2.9 million in 1993. So it is clear that we need to do much better in terms of GDP growth if we are to rely on that for job creation.
It has been estimated that a steady growth rate of 3 per cent. per annum of real GDP would have a long-term
274
positive effect on job creation. However, it must be a sustainable rate, otherwise we shall have the boom and bust scenario against which the Chancellor has rightly set his face. It is a huge task, probably unachievable, to maintain that level of GDP growth without inflation, even if it is desirable from the point of view of preserving the environment and controlling the use of non-renewable resources. So we must look more widely for ways of increasing job opportunities.
The question I wish to address today is whether we are doing enough to ensure that the present distress of high unemployment will in time bring the reward of creating the jobs that we need. Is it really a case of réculerpour mieux sauter? It probably is but we have a high fence to jump and we must plan how to get over it —for in today's conditions of rapid technological change, a rise in GDP, as I have indicated, will not necessarily lead to an acceptable level of job creation. Nevertheless, as we begin to come out of recession, more jobs are being created and unemployment has started to fall. That has encouraged a widely held belief that, as the economy grows, the necessary number of jobs will automatically be created, which will reduce unemployment to an acceptable level of, say, under 1 million. But is that a realistic view, or is it excessively complacent?
The fact is that in all but a few service sectors such as education, tourism and the arts, technological progress results in increasing productivity. Let me give some examples. As yet there are not many factories in the UK operating 24 hours a day, with computers controlling robots, monitored by only a few maintenance staff; but they are coming. In the financial sector, too, institutions have invested heavily in computer-based systems with the objective of increasing productivity. Banks have closed many branches and your friendly bank manager seems likely to be replaced by automated decision-making. In London ½ million jobs have been lost in the past five years which will be hard to replace.
Shopping, too, is moving away from a relatively labour-intensive activity to greatly increased turnover per employee in large supermarkets and in expanding self service over a wide area. In distribution generally, where containers long ago increased productivity in the docks by a factor of 10, we are now seeing a similar trend in wholesale warehouses brought about by automatic guided vehicles under computer control.
In transport the same trends are discernible: one-man buses, one-driver trains, even driverless trains, and bigger and bigger lorries.
In electronic communications successful competition has brought down costs by shedding jobs and, happily, has improved service through more efficient working.
In services provided by central and local government every effort is being made to achieve savings through productivity increases, some would say not always without detriment to the service provided.
So not only is it in manufacturing that output per employee is increasing but also in many service industries too. There is no sign of an end to such

275
developments. Progress of technology cannot be halted: our objective must be to harness technology to our needs and not allow it to become our master.
Where do we go from here to provide opportunities for everyone to live satisfying lives through creative activity of some kind? It would be a waste of time to go into detail on the unemployment situation today: the human misery which youth and long-term unemployment brings is all too evident, particularly in relatively small communities where more than 50 per cent. may be unemployed.
Suffice to accept that it is a serious problem and that everything possible should be done to create more jobs, while accepting that competitiveness is absolutely essential, for without it customers will go elsewhere and more businesses will fail.
An urgent requirement is a much higher standard of training in the workforce at all levels, for the number of low skilled jobs will steadily decrease, and even for them relevant training is needed. Her Majesty's Government are already taking urgent action to achieve that, but the outcome will take many years to become effective and time is not on our side. So we must seek to create more jobs in the shorter term.
First, I believe that we should encourage a new outlook in business. Increasing shareholder value is outmoded as the sole objective. Wider considerations must prevail through a partnership of all the stakeholders, which includes customers, suppliers, employees and the national interest, as well as shareholders. The principle underlying the statement that "What is good for General Motors is good for the USA" is outmoded today. A better concept is that "What is good for Britain is good for business".
Research at the Harvard Business School on companies' achievements during 1977 to 1988 indicated clearly that those which valued all the stakeholders' interests did substantially better than those which put only shareholders first. Mr. Morita, chairman of the great Sony electronic company, has said,
"A company that reinvests in itself instead of concentrating on profits alone, will in the long run return more to its shareholders".
So if we take job creation seriously we should recognise that the objective of improved competitiveness must always be to increase turnover, both directly and through suppliers, rather than to maximise the short-term return to shareholders.
Greater investment is the key, in particular in new products and services to capture an expanding share of world markets. Although inward investment has already contributed significantly to job creation, it is unhealthy for us to be excessively dependent on external decision-making. I welcome the investigation being made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on business taxation and the financing of medium-sized growth companies with the aim of improving investment. I hope that one of his conclusions will be that national insurance contributions should be abolished and the revenue found in other ways, for this is a direct tax on investment in people and a clear disincentive to employing more, especially young, people.
He should also look sympathetically at changes in
276
company taxation which will favour retention of profits for investment rather than distribution—for the proportion of profits paid out in dividends is three times higher in the UK than for our principal competitors. However much the financial institutions protest their support of investment, the fact is that UK manufacturing investment relative to world output has steadily declined over the past 15 years, the 1994 figure being half that of 1970. That cannot be good for competitiveness and job opportunities bearing in mind the powerful and growing competition from South-East Asia and elsewhere.
In many of our competitors selective government support to encourage growth in industry is greater than here. That is due mainly to the ruling dogma in the UK that such support —I do not mean interference—is always counter-productive. But the success of such organisations as the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, contributing some £½ million per annum in support of job creation, and the high cost, nearly £10,000 per annum for each unemployed person, should surely lead us at least to question that dogma.
Here it is relevant that our labour costs per hour are three times greater than those in South-East Asia but similar to Japan's and 60 per cent. of those in Germany. Despite that, overall unemployment in those countries is much lower than in the UK; and in Germany the percentage of youth unemployment is one third of ours. The principal reasons for those variations are clearly a different level of investment in innovation required to capture a larger share of world markets.
Small and medium-sized enterprises have a big role to play in job creation, for investment in small companies is almost always for growth and job creation. Privately owned medium-sized enterprises can pursue a more flexible employment policy in hard times because they are free of external pressures on profitability and share price. Compared, for example, with Germany, we have far fewer of this type of company, which we should seek to encourage.
But it is unrealistic to assume that greater investment alone, important though it is, can and will create all the job opportunities we need. It can easily result in making richer those who share in the fruits of investment at the expense of those in more labour intensive jobs or in none.
So there is a case for job sharing and part-time working. There are already many in part-time employment who are satisfied with the resulting relatively low pay. Developments in electronic data transmission are making part-time home working increasingly practicable, and it should be encouraged. The difficulty of job sharing is that it involves pay sharing. But we should look carefully at, for instance, facilitating early retirement, at a shorter working week, at rates of pay which will not reduce competitiveness and at ways of reducing regular overtime working at all levels. All of these will involve some personal sacrifices, but if we take job creation seriously, that is inevitable.
I heard recently of a private company employing 1,200 people which had negotiated reduced working

277
hours with the trade unions to avoid laying off staff. That is a most constructive attitude which should be applauded and adopted more widely.
Trade unions can also contribute in other ways. At present they seem to me to concentrate too much on improving pay and conditions of those in work rather than maximising job creation. Would it not be sensible to give the unemployed a bigger say on their executive committees to promote a better balance?
I should also like to see trade union pressure on management to increase investment so as to stimulate job creation in the longer term, and I welcome the conference on "Towards Full Employment" which is to be held in July, sponsored by the Trades Union Congress and the Employment Policy Institute. All this and more will be greatly helped by seeking a consensus throughout a company and the wider use of effective works councils and staff associations.
These are just some of the ways of stimulating job creation in this age of rapidly advancing technology. No doubt some people will think they are excessively idealistic, impracticable or ineffective. But I believe that we would all agree on the urgent need to create more jobs and that the current level of unemployment is not acceptable. So I look forward to hearing many other constructive ideas during the debate.
Through its policy of a flexible labour market and the many DTI schemes aimed at improving competitiveness, Her Majesty's Government are already making a useful contribution. But much more needs to be done. Perhaps I have painted too bleak a picture of the prospects of job creation. But we cannot predict the future with any certainty, except that the problem of maintaining an acceptable level of unemployment, combined with low inflation, will always be with us. So is it not wise to err on the side of caution and plan to create more jobs in every way? To be forewarned and forearmed is better than saying "Too little too late" in the years to come. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tan worth: My Lords, in following that important and interesting speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, about job creation in the United Kingdom, it is my privilege to present to the House a report by the European Communities Committee, prepared by Sub-Committee A, which takes the subject a little wider.
The starting point for our inquiry into growth, competitiveness and employment in the European Community was the Commission's White Paper of last December which was not a proposal for legislation but much more of a discussion document. It was endorsed by the European Council in Brussels as "a reference point for future work". The action plan then approved by the council is due to be reviewed at the Corfu meeting this weekend. So this debate is very timely.
We spent nearly five months studying the subject in some depth and I therefore begin by thanking all those who helped us. They included, of course, government departments, institutions, academics and other experts in this country. In Brussels we saw Commissioners
278
Christophersen and Prag and three directors-general from other directorates, as well as UNICE, the ETUC and other witnesses. We owe a big "thank you" to them all.
We also owe a special debt to our specialist adviser, Mr. Paul Richards, whose knowledge, clarity and analysis of the complicated data with which we were confronted was quite invaluable. Once again, we were very fortunate to have the great organisational and drafting skills of our clerk, Mr. Tom Mohan. Our report was unanimous and I should like to thank all my colleagues both for their individual contributions and also for their tolerance of the chair.
We believe that despite welcome evidence of cyclical recovery, unemployment remains the most important social problem at the present time. I think that it is vital to try to understand the causes before thinking about remedies. But given the problem of time and our status as a European Committee, we limited the scope of our inquiry in two ways. First, we have investigated in some detail the causes of unemployment in the Community as a whole and why it is so much higher than in the United States and Japan. But we recognise, of course, that the nature of the problem varies significantly from one member state to another. It is worth emphasising that we have not conducted an inquiry into unemployment specifically in the United Kingdom. Nor have we considered wider questions about the social consequences of unemployment and the pattern of life and work in society.
Secondly, in our recommendations we have concentrated on what needs to be done and what can be done about unemployment at Community level, as distinct from what needs to be done by member states. But having said that, I think that we were all struck during our inquiry by the extent to which it is national rather than Community action that is called for.
In the light of the evidence that we have taken, we think that the problem of structural unemployment is, if anything, even more serious than the White Paper suggested. By "structural unemployment", I mean the rate of unemployment averaged out over the business cycle. We refer to structural unemployment rather than technological unemployment because although new technology destroys old jobs it also creates new ones, as the noble Viscount has already stressed. But a common view is that at present at least half of the unemployment in the Community of nearly 19 million is structural. So one is possibly looking at a continuing relic of something like 10 million.
The level of structural unemployment has also been increasing for a long time both in absolute terms and relative to the United States and Japan. For example, real GDP has grown by around 80 per cent. over the past 25 years in both the United States and in the Community. But over the same period employment in the United States has increased by around 40 per cent., whereas employment in the Community has increased by only 10 per cent.
We believe that the Community has much to learn from American and Japanese experience, though the

279
extent to which it is feasible or desirable for the Community to treat the United States or Japan as a model is, of course, limited.
The problem of structural unemployment in the Community can to some extent be attributed to lack of growth and loss of competitiveness. But we have to face the paradox that while competitiveness is essential to growth, neither the lack of growth nor the loss of competitiveness on their own is sufficient to explain the comparatively high level of structural unemployment. In our view the causes are complex and related to each other. There are three main ones.
The first is that growth has been inadequate. It has been inadequate in the sense that the potential rate of growth in the Community—that is, the rate at which the Community can grow over many years without overheating—has fallen from 4.5 per cent. per annum in real terms 25 years ago to just over 2 per cent. now. But a real rate of growth of 2 per cent. (which is what it is) is needed just to maintain the current level of employment in the Community and 2.5 per cent. is needed to prevent unemployment from rising, taking account of the increase in the working population.
Investment has been inadequate to support a higher rate of growth—inadequate not so much in quantitative terms, because investment in the Community is higher than it is in the United States, but in qualitative terms. Investment in education and training is particularly important; and, of course, the high level of real interest rates in the Community, which have been used as an instrument of policy to break inflationary expectations, has undoubtedly, however necessary, had the effect of reducing the real rate of growth.
Secondly, the Community has lost international competitiveness. We define competitiveness in terms of quality as well as cost, and measure it in terms of the Community's share of world markets as well as a place in which companies choose to invest. We are clear that competitiveness relates to the economy as a whole, and not just to the companies that trade within it. For example, the high cost and low efficiency of Europe's ageing infrastructure has been a major drag on competitiveness. Associated with the loss of competitiveness, the Community has lost its technological edge. Innovations take longer in the Community to develop into marketable products than they do in the United States or Japan. We were frequently told that businesses in the Community are good at inventing processes but not so good at manufacturing products.
Thirdly, labour markets in the Community do not work efficiently in a number of ways. They are still too heavily regulated and there is insufficient job mobility across the Community. A common view that was expressed to us in evidence is that over-regulation of the labour market deters employers from taking on new employees and leads to excessive rigidity in real wages, making the labour market in the Community slower to adjust than in the United States. Unit labour costs in the Community have risen much faster in recent years than they have in the United States, though not as fast as they have in Japan after allowing for changes in exchange rates. Non-wage labour costs now represent 44 per cent.
280
of total labour costs in the Community as a whole (though less in the United Kingdom) compared to 28 per cent. in the United States and 24 per cent. in Japan.
Finally, the employment intensity of growth in the Community is too low. In other words, the rate of growth required before there is an increase in employment is too high. Output in the Community has to grow by 2 per cent. per annum before there is an increase in employment, whereas in the United States it has to grow by less than 1 per cent.
So much for causes. The proposals that are put forward in the White Paper attracted considerable support in the evidence that we received. They should have a significant potential effect on employment in the long term, although in the short term they will create few new jobs.
I turn to the matter of growth. The White. Paper puts less emphasis on growth than it does on competitiveness and employment. We believe, however, that the cyclical recovery from recession should be the immediate recovery, and that that recovery must be capable of being sustained. The main focus of the White Paper is on tackling the substantial level of structural unemployment which will remain once the economy has recovered. Those two objectives have completely different timescales.
We also considered to what extent the Maastricht convergence criteria are consistent with tackling structural unemployment. We conclude that it is important for the member states to achieve the convergence criteria in the medium term, but that they should not be strictly applied until the Community has recovered from recession. That is irrespective of whether member states proceed to the third stage of economic and monetary union—an issue which, I should emphasise, was outside the scope of our inquiry.
The next question is: what balance should be struck between measures designed to improve competitiveness and measures targeted specifically at creating jobs? We agree that restoring the Community's competitiveness is a necessary condition for sustained growth. But restoring competitiveness will not solve the Community's structural unemployment problem. We think that the priority ought to be to develop a strategy both for competitiveness and for employment. Although the two are related, they are not the same. The Community must become more competitive in a way that encourages job creation as well as jobless expansion. This is partly a matter of improving productivity: in other words, doing what is already being done more efficiently. But it is also a matter of encouraging innovation: in other words, branching out into new activities as well.
We considered in evidence a number of measures designed both to improve competitiveness and to create employment. The Commission, for example, is convinced that non-wage labour costs in the Community represent a tax on jobs which should be reduced— although it accepts that there are significant variations between member states and there is no agreement between them on how any such reduction should be financed.

281
A number of our witnesses also proposed that rigidities in the labour market should be removed so that the economies of member states can sustain a higher level of growth without increasing inflation. There is general agreement that lifelong education and vocation-al training should be encouraged in order to match skills, so far as is possible, to changing technological needs, even though it is not always clear in advance what sort of new jobs there will be.
Some more controversial ideas were also put to us: for example, that benefits in the form of recruitment subsidies should be paid to employers who take on the long-term unemployed and that people in the Community who can afford it should be encouraged to make greater provision for their own welfare if they have not already done so.
Ultimately, all these matters are for individual member states. But we believe that the Commission has a role—one which the White Paper sought to fulfil—as a catalyst for the exchange of ideas; as an advocate of best practice; as a monitor, for example, of the effect of regulations on employment; and as an umpire to prevent mutually destructive deregulation between member states.
Apart from the measures that need to be taken by member states we consider that measures are needed at Community level in four main areas. First, the single market must be completed quickly and (even more important) enforced equally in all member states. Public procurement in particular remains an outstanding issue. Secondly, we welcome the Commission's proposals for trans-European networks in transport and energy as a way of improving competitiveness in the long term. But they should not be regarded as an adjunct to employment policy, and their contribution to relieving unemployment during the construction period, while useful, will be very limited. In addition, the meaning of private finance and the means of Community support for trans-European networks need to be clarified; and a way must be found of cutting project lead times. Thirdly, information highways raise issues which are Community-wide. We agree that the Community has a role in setting common standards for them. Fourthly, we also believe that the Community has a role in encouraging innovation; for example, by encouraging "clusters" of companies and universities to pool their research.
Unemployment in the Community is part of a very much wider problem which is also being discussed in other international groups. Since we reported, an OECD study on unemployment has been published. The focus of the OECD study is on action at national level. It covers a wider geographical area than our report but the analysis and prescriptions are broadly the same. Even when the OECD says that worries about a new area of jobless growth appear unfounded, it refers in particular to recent experience in the United States rather than in the Community.
We received the Government's response to our report earlier this week and the committee has not had an opportunity to consider it. However, I was glad to see that it seemed generally favourable to our report.
282
Nevertheless, there was one point on which there may have been a misunderstanding, which I should like to clarify. The Government:
"challenge the committee's call for macro-economic policy to be directed at promoting cyclical recovery".
That is not quite what the committee said. It said that recovery should be the immediate priority but that was in the context of the Commission's White Paper, which put less emphasis on growth than on competitiveness and employment despite the fact that achieving sustainable recovery is an immediate problem whereas structural unemployment is a long-term one. The committee wanted to redress the balance a little. But we agreed that the convergence criteria ought to be met in the medium term.
The issues raised in the Commission's White Paper will not go away. The level of structural unemployment is extremely worrying and, if anything, more serious than the White Paper suggests. It is a matter of considerable concern and I am very glad that your Lordships' House is debating it today.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caldecote on providing the House with an opportunity to debate the challenges and opportunities that technology provides for job creation. Many noble Lords have the benefit of detailed knowledge and experience of these issues; and all of us benefit from the work of the Select Committee on the European Communities and its sub-committees. In this case we all owe a debt to Sub-Committee A, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth.
I know that my noble friend Lord Henley hopes to be able to respond to the detailed analysis and comments in the debate. Rather, therefore, than follow the details of the two eloquent speeches we have already heard, with your Lordships' agreement, I should like to set the debate in a wider context. We are debating together two Motions which at first glance appear to cover very different issues. But they share a common thread. They are about how we should adapt and change in the light of the economic developments that surround us. They are about how we can create a better quality of life for all. In a word, they are all about competitiveness.
The importance of competitiveness is something which none of us can ignore. Learned articles are written about its finer shades of meaning. I should explain therefore precisely what the Government mean by competitiveness. For a firm it is the ability to produce the right goods and services of the right quality, at the right price, at the right time. It means meeting customers' needs more efficiently and more effectively than do other firms. Indeed, it is the concept which underpins all commercial activity. For a nation, the Government agree with the OECD that competitiveness is,
"the degree to which [the nation] can, under free and fair market conditions, produce goods and services which meet the test of international markets while simultaneously maintaining and expanding the real incomes of its people over the long term".
The essential message of competitiveness is that we have to earn our way. We can do so only by winning

283
business in world markets. That is something that we simply have to do. Indeed, if we are not competitive, there will be serious constraints on what we can achieve as a nation.
So where does the United Kingdom stand in terms of competitiveness? Are we moving forward? Or are we slipping back into mediocrity? The United Kingdom's relative industrial decline over the past 100 years or so is no great secret. Of course, in absolute terms, we are better off now than we were 100 years ago. But our relative standing has declined. However, over the past 15 years or so, that decline has been arrested. The figures speak for themselves. During the 1980s, manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom grew faster than in any of our major competitors. In the same decade, the United Kingdom's volume share of world trade in manufactures stabilised after years of decline. It was the first decade since the war in which the UK economy grew faster than the economies of France, Germany and Italy.
More recently, GDP has been growing for eight quarters and is now back to pre-recession levels. Unemployment has fallen by over 300,000 since its peak 18 months ago. Over the past year, manufacturing output has risen by 2.3 per cent. and industrial production by 4.4 per cent. And, so importantly, that has been achieved while keeping inflation under control. Indeed, over the past year or so figures for inflation have generally been lower than expected, and growth has been better than expected. My noble friend Lord Caldecote explained how important that was for long-term growth.
Manufacturing investment, as a proportion of manufacturing output, was higher in the 1980s than in the 1970s. The growth in business investment in the 1980s was faster than in any other major industrialised country except Japan. Since 1979 investment in plant and machinery is nearly 50 per cent. higher, and over the last economic cycle, from 1981 to 1992, manufacturing investment increased by nearly one fifth and business investment by over a half. That does not mean that we can now sit back and relax. As my noble friend explained, we do not want boom and bust. We must plan for the long term; for steady growth with low inflation. That is now firmly in our grasp.
There have been great changes in the world economy. The pace of technological development is astonishing. My noble friend Lord Caldecote drew attention to the challenges which that brings. The market place is increasingly a global one. The competition faced by our companies has grown immeasurably stronger: the Asian tigers have emerged and are roaring ever louder. But here lies our opportunity. Indeed, last year the United Kingdom increased its exports to the dynamic markets of Asia and the Pacific Rim by 30 per cent. over the previous year. That in itself is a tremendous achievement.
There are changes closer to home. The Iron Curtain has been swept aside. The first tentative steps have been taken towards establishing market economies in the countries of eastern Europe. As those markets develop, they will themselves give rise to new opportunities, and to challenges. The extension of the single market to
284
most EFTA countries and the establishment of the North American free trade zone is changing the business environment yet again.
Looking ahead, there is: no telling what further changes will occur and how even faster technological change may alter the way in which we do business or change the requirements for remaining competitive. But one thing is certain: change is here to stay. That creates a huge challenge for this country. However, it would be futile to suggest we resist change. We could not even if we wished to. There is no hiding place in today's global market place; we should not be afraid of it. Change, particularly in the use of high technology, robotics and so on, rids people of the need to do tedious jobs.
There may be those who would prefer to resist the changes that technology can bring. No doubt we shall hear from them during the course of the debate: those who, over 250 years ago, would have argued against the flying shuttle, which did so much for the textile industry; those who, 180 years ago, would have joined the Luddites in condemning new machines; and those who, 80 years ago, would have seen a great future for the horse-drawn carriage as a staple means of transport. Change can be uncomfortable. But to keep one's head in the sand becomes increasingly uncomfortable. The key to the future is to exploit change; to seize the unparalleled opportunities; and to use technology to create new jobs and whole new industries.
I hope that there is one debate we can all put behind us; that is, whether it is manufacturing or services that really matter for the future. I can assure the House that the Government are clear that a competitive manufacturing sector is essential for our long-term prosperity. Manufacturing accounts for around one-fifth of our GDP and employment—a similar proportion to that in France and above that in Canada and the United States. The importance of manufacturing does not derive simply from its share of output and employment, nor because it supplies around half our consumer purchases. Rather, it is the key tradable sector. It contributes roughly threequarters of our exports.
Manufacturing has also traditionally been the main source of productivity growth in the UK and in most other advanced countries. But recent developments in information technology mean that productivity in many service sector industries can now be expected to grow quickly. Of course, a pound of value added in services is worth exactly the same as a pound of value added in manufacturing. Furthermore, manufacturing and ser-vices are increasingly interlinked. Manufacturing is a significant customer of the service sector. Manufacturing's own competitiveness depends on an efficient service sector. In addition, manufactured goods often have value added to them through the delivery of services at the same time. Indeed, just last week it was suggested in the other place that there could come a time when PCs would come free when one purchased the software they used.
The truth about manufacturing and services is simple. They both matter. Or rather, competitive manufacturing and competitive services both matter. For it is businesses, not governments, that create wealth. The

285
primary responsibility for competitiveness therefore rests with the private sector. But of course the Government have a part to play.
The White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment referred to on the Order Paper is the production of the European Commission. But it has not gone unnoticed in this House that we too produced a White Paper on competitiveness which seeks to set out the challenges that we face in the UK, the role of the private sector, and the role of government. It makes clear that improving competitiveness requires action across a very broad front—transport, education, training, industry and fiscal policies. Indeed, such is the importance of the issue that we should leave no nook or cranny unexplored in the search for improvements.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote is right when he says that companies must increasingly look at the needs of all stakeholders, customers, consumers, employees and bankers as well as shareholders. But that will not come from imposition by central government. That is the route of fossilisation and disaster. In this country we are blessed with a highly sophisticated financial community. British industry should reap the advantage of having that on its doorstep. The role of small and medium enterprises in this country cannot be over-exaggerated. Small firms are particularly important. But we still have a culture which too often is represented as being anti-entrepreneurial. All those subjects are dealt with in our own White Paper.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote rightly drew attention to the challenges that new technology can bring. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, helpfully drew attention to the European dimension. I hope that, for my part, I leave the House in no doubt of this Government's commitment to taking action to improve the competitiveness of our country.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, for introducing this debate with a most constructive and perceptive speech. We are grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and his committee for its valuable report on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment in the European Community which contains a wealth of important information on the topic of this debate. We should be grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his interesting speech.
Unemployment is the economic and social curse of the 1990s. It is an economic waste, morally and personally degrading, socially destructive and divisive. The high and rising rate of unemployment in the European Union is a cause not just for concern but for alarm. Of course the number of people in Britain receiving unemployment benefit has been falling over the past few months. While that is certainly better than the figures rising, it is only a partial cause for satisfaction—for something very strange is happening to the British unemployment figures.
Since it reached a peak in December 1992, the number of unemployed receiving benefit, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out, fell by 310,000.
286
But while unemployment has gone down, employment has not gone up. In fact, all forms of employment, including self-employment, have gone down by 58,000. That means that 368,000 people are not employed and they are not unemployed either; they have just disappeared.
The mystery deepens if we examine the position of male workers. Since 1979 more than 1 million men between the ages of 25 and 54—the so-called peak active age—have disappeared; they are not employed and they are not unemployed. Today one in four of all men of prime working age in Britain have disappeared from the labour market; they are economically inactive. That is the highest figure in any major industrial country, exceeded in the European Union only by Ireland. What is happening? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will tell us. One in four men of peak working age being idle may be what this Government mean by a "flexible labour market".
Unemployment, growth and competitiveness have been the subject of a number of important reports and speeches over the past few weeks, in addition to the European Commission White Paper which is the main subject of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Some of them have been referred to already. They include the recent important lecture by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; the preliminary report by the Secretary-General of the OECD on its forthcoming jobs study; the White Paper presented by the President of the Board of Trade referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; the pamphlet, How we can conquer unemployment, published by my honourable friend Dr. Gordon Brown; and the policy document, Winning for Britain: Labour's strategy for industrial success, written by my honourable friend Mr. Robin Cook. Taking this deluge of reports, pamphlets and papers together, a number of common themes emerge. It is on those themes—the intellectual bedrock of policy formation —that I wish to focus my remarks.
First, a common theme is that tackling unemployment is back where it belongs—firmly at the top of the political agenda. As the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, said earlier, it was genuinely heartening to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying last month that,
"Unemployment must … be the main preoccupation of economic policy makers in the 1990s".
That is a most welcome change from his predecessor's doctrine that "Rising unemployment" is a "price… well worth paying".
Secondly, there is general agreement, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a little ambivalent, that an effective employment policy in Britain must be part of a co-ordinated employment policy in the European Union as a whole. When, as today, one in five of all jobs in Britain is directly dependent on demand elsewhere in the Union, when production is increasingly integrated across member states and when firms, if not governments, plan their operations on a European scale, that must be right.
Thirdly, there is also general agreement that a vital component of an effective employment policy is the

287
ability to adapt to the demands of technological change, creating an environment in which innovation is an opportunity, not a threat.
Fourthly, everyone, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, agrees that the high levels of unemployment in the Community have not been created either by an acceleration in the pace of technological change or, to any significant extent, by competition from the newly industrialising countries of the third world. In fact, the overall rate of technological change, as measured by the rate of labour productivity growth, is everywhere significantly lower today than it was in the 1960s; and as far as third world competition is concerned, while the share of third world manufactures in total demand is growing rapidly, from 1 per cent. in 1968 to 4 per cent. last year, it is still far too small to be the explanation of the massive growth in unemployment suffered in the G7 and European Union over the past decade.
So, as the OECD report concludes:
"In practice, most of the competition in OECD countries comes not from low-wage countries, but from the OECD countries themselves…Globalisation … fosters economic growth and development… With this growth and development comes the wholesale destruction of many jobs—around one in 10 each year —together with the creation of a similar number of new ones".
This is the fundamental problem, the problem that everyone agrees needs to be solved. Change necessarily involves the destruction of jobs and, at the same time, the creation of jobs. How do we ensure that instead of the creation of a "similar number" of new jobs, actually more jobs are created than are destroyed?
It is at this point that harmony ends and disagreements appear in the various documents to which I have referred, for the final message which emerges so clearly from all these documents is that woven through the welter of analysis and proposals are two quite different policy themes, two quite different intellectual and practical approaches to the problems of employment and competitiveness. On the one hand, as far as the Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade are concerned, the approach in Britain and in Europe should be,
"deregulation, structural reform and … flexible labour markets".
Their approach is a continuation, that is, of the programme of laissez-faire reform initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
On the other hand, as far as my honourable friends Dr. Brown and Mr. Cook are concerned, the approach in Britain and in Europe should involve a commitment to investment in capacity, to investment in education and skills and to the development of the new technologies —that commitment to be secured by creating a new long-term relationship between industry and finance, by an egalitarian society with a secure structure of employment rights and by investment in that technological infrastructure which, despite our remark-able inventiveness, Britain notably lacks.
These quite different approaches lead to very different policy prescriptions. The Government's approach is very much influenced by the experience of the American economy, where in recent years, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, told us and as his report illustrates, job creation has been significantly higher and
288
unemployment significantly lower than in the European Union. The Chancellor of the Exchequer characterises the American model in these terms:
"There are few regulations or controls. Wage bargaining is highly decentralised. Trade unions are weak. Standards of social protection are low".
The result, he argues, is that:
"The United States has a less regulated labour market them European countries and enjoys much lower levels of unemployment".
But the Government's analysis of the American economy is misguided and their enthusiasm for the American model is misplaced. In any economy in which social security provision for the unemployed is low or even non-existent, recorded unemployment will be low. Unemployment in Mexico, for example, is today 2.8 per cent., less than half the American rate. Why instead of the American model does not the noble Lord, Lord Henley, adopt the Mexican model? Perhaps he will tell us what the Government have to learn from Mexico's employment policy.
It is obvious why unemployment is low when social security is low. When there is nothing else to live on, people find a way of scraping by on very low incomes —running errands, shining shoes, delivering pizzas, or, in Britain, selling The Big Issue in the Strand. As has been recognised since the 1930s, people scraping by in this manner are in fact a special category of the unemployed; they are what is called disguised unemployed. If there were a higher level of activity in the economy they would get real jobs in which their productive capacities could be fully utilised. But, stuck in disguised unemployment, their capacities are woefully under-utilised.
The OECD report clearly identifies the fallacy in the Chancellor's enthusiasm for the American model:
"The appearance of widespread unemployment in Europe … on the one hand, and of poor quality jobs as well as unemployment in the United States on the other, have thus both stemmed from the same root cause: the failure to adapt to change".
It is actually easy to distinguish between real jobs and disguised unemployment. When people are taking real jobs in a dynamic economy their productivity grows as they adapt to the demands of technological change. In disguised unemployment there is no productivity growth. That is why for the past 20 years American productivity growth has been less than half the rate of productivity growth in Europe. Indeed, the rate of productivity growth in the American services has for the past 20 years been nil. This is not a model of adapting to change. It is the absence of change.
The Labour Party's approach is quite different from the Chancellor's. Dr. Brown's pamphlet spells out in detail an employment policy which embraces change, with a commitment to enhanced competitiveness and real jobs. His approach is built on the recognition that Britain's ability to sustain any level of employment, let alone full employment, has been systematically undermined for many, many years by a lack of investment. That lack of investment cannot be attributed solely to the policies of the past decade. It goes back much further than that. Low investment is endemic in the institutional structure of Britain's economy. What is needed, and what is proposed by my honourable friends,

289
is a fundamental and far-reaching institutional reform designed to ensure that the most successful financial sector in the world operates in the interest of British industry and not at the expense of British industry; designed to ensure that Britain's workforce is educated and trained to the high levels demanded by modern technologies; and designed to ensure that the remarkable inventiveness of the British is channelled into high technology production, founded on the latest technological infrastructure.
The differences between these two approaches—the approach of the Government and the approach of the Labour Party—should now be clear. The Government's approach is essentially static. It is about given markets in given circumstances. Any inhibition to the operation of markets, especially labour markets and financial markets, is automatically labelled as damaging to economic efficiency and likely to prevent the market clearing. Labour's approach is essentially dynamic. It is a search for the most efficient means of accumulation, the most efficient means of incorporating technological change into the economy and the most efficient means of developing the skills of the labour force.
Starting from these two quite different positions, the same objectives produce quite different policies. Everyone, for example, is in favour of more "flexible" labour markets. Now it may be true, as the US Secretary of Employment has recently remarked, that:
"The concept of 'the flexible labour market' has in the past few years gone from novelty to banality, without ever passing through coherence along the way".
But despite Mr. Reich's doubts, "flexibility" is still the shibboleth of Labour market policy.
For the Government, applying their static approach, flexibility means stripping away workers' employment rights, reducing collective bargaining to a bare minimum and increasing inequality. The Chancellor describes the widening gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid as "inevitable and probably desirable". For the Labour Party, applying its dynamic approach, flexibility means a highly-skilled labour force, adaptable and secure, with the confidence that it can respond to the changing demands of technology. It includes the recognition that the highest rates of labour productivity growth are enjoyed by those countries with more equal distributions of income, not less equal, as the Chancellor seems to think. The social chapter is an excellent example of the high standards between employers and employed which are an important component of a dynamic approach but dismissed as a market impediment in the static approach.
The Government may complain that they do try to encourage investment and growth. Of course they do. But their entire static laissez-faire philosophy is incompatible with their goal. For example, the President of the Board of Trade's interventionist instincts do not fit well with the Government's laissez-faire framework. That is why his White Paper is an American doughnut of a document—shiny frosting on the surface, stodgy inside, and with a hole in the middle where a coherent policy should be.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord is announcing the Opposition's policy, which is important. When he speaks about real employment and hidden unemployment, is he suggesting that the hidden unemployment in the jobs which he outlined should not be mentioned? If real jobs are not available, does the noble Lord applaud, or is he appalled at, what he calls the hidden unemployment alternative?
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am in favour of the position taken on that by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who commented on Tuesday that this process involves levels of pay for the least skilled that a fundamentally wealthy society would rightly consider too low to be acceptable.
A constructive approach to change must be built on a policy of high quality investment. That policy is essentially about building the institutional framework which fosters change in today's high technology world. Let me be quite clear: Labour is not opposed to all deregulation and it is not in favour of all regulation. Labour is in favour of the balance of competition and regulation which encourages long-term investment, which is the source of high technology innovation and high technology quality—the only true foundations of long-term competitiveness.
Those are the foundations of the dynamic market economy which my honourable friend Mr. Tony Blair has argued is the true basis of future prosperity and of full employment. He is absolutely right.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, it is not for me perhaps to praise the report by the Select Committee on the European Communities since I was a member of that committee and of the sub-committee involved in working out the report. However, I did learn a number of lessons which may be of some relevance to our debate. I wish to underline two, one of which has perhaps been mentioned sufficiently already. I refer to the jobless growth.
Clearly, in a global market place, however imperfect it may still be, competitiveness is not just a condition of growth but of economic survival. Clearly, therefore, the conditions for competitiveness have to be created. At the same time I, for one, left the committee with a very strong sense, after all the evidence we heard, that competitiveness, even if it includes innovation as well as increases in productivity, will not by itself help us much in combating unemployment. Some jobs will be created; a lot of jobs will disappear. And the unemployment problem will remain with us. The statement by the committee that competitiveness and employment are two problems which have to be tackled but which are difficult to tackle through one set of policies is one conclusion I have drawn.
The other conclusion, not so far mentioned, is that there are enormous differences, not just between European countries and the Asian tigers but within Europe. I give as an example the statement in the report, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the indirect, non-wage costs of labour, as a proportion of total labour costs in the Community, are too high. The

291
noble Lord, Lord Hunt, fairly pointed out that non-wage labour costs as a percentage of total labour costs in the European Union are 44.4 per cent. But if ever there was a meaningless average it is that one. Indeed, European Community figures are often fairly meaningless because they provide averages between widely divergent situations.
If one examines the figures in detail one discovers that, as a proportion of total labour costs, non-wage labour costs are close to 50 per cent. or even above in Italy, France and Germany and 30 per cent. in this country. That is a massive difference which needs analysis. In my view it points to the fact that there may be different and various methods of achieving competitiveness. The difference is so profound that it needs explanation, probably in terms of quite divergent economic cultures—the role of shareholdings and the stock market, the type of pension system which prevails and therefore the interests of ordinary citizens in the yield of companies directly rather than indirectly by way of taxation on non-wage labour costs. They are differences which, I am convinced, will not go away although I suspect that, partly as a result of the increasing pressures of the world market and partly as a result of the European Community, Britain and continental countries may move a little closer—but only a little. Vast differences will remain. That explains perhaps why it is hard to devise common social policies for the Community of 12. Members have different experiences and different approaches.
Those differences raise the big question with which we are concerned this afternoon: what do we do? In other words, what is the right answer, considering the limited effects of competitiveness on employment and the specific economic culture of the United Kingdom, to the worrying problem of unemployment?
I listened with great interest to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. His speech was so packed with important ideas that it was difficult to take them all in at one hearing. I look forward to reading his remarks in Hansard. The noble Viscount made many relevant points with which I certainly associate myself.
I add two footnotes to what needs to be done if we are to cope with the vexing problem of lasting unemployment in a competitive world. We have to get clear in our minds and in our political actions where the line should be drawn between the competitive domain of our lives and what I call the public domain. In my view the simple application of the values of the competitive sphere to the public domain is erroneous and has consequences for employment and in other respects which are not conducive to increasing the well-being of the nation.
The public domain includes educational institutions where competitiveness may work the other way. A deteriorating staff-student ratio in universities makes, from a certain point onwards, British universities less competitive with those of other countries than was the case when there was a better and more sensible relationship between the number of teachers and the number of those taught. I take that example from my own experience: it would be easy to quote examples from other areas. We may reach, following calm and
292
careful reflection, different conclusions from those that derive from the automatic application of the language, values and actions of the strictly competitive sector.
The other footnote I would add to the important points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and others has to do with the notion of people's employability. I doubt whether we are going into a world in which the overwhelming majority of people will have steady jobs and careers throughout their working lives. One of the main features of the decades ahead will be that people will have to be able to change and to adjust. They will have; to be able to change from full-time to part-time work and to make adjustments which are sometimes painful, sometimes desirable, but for which many are not prepared at this stage.
I feel that preparing people for this more complex and difficult world is a key issue, within which the most difficult and important single problem will be getting young people, and young men especially, into the labour market in the first instance. The question is how to avoid a situation in which a growing number of young men have never been part of the labour market and for whom employability has never become part of their mental make-up, habits, attitudes or way of life.
That raises the issue of incentives. Above all, however, it raises questions about training and the relationship between vocational training and the job opportunities connected with it. We need an interlinking of vocational training and job opportunities. The problem is more severe for young men at this stage than for young women who seem to find it easier to adjust to a world requiring greater flexibility. The problem is that unless young men have at least one experience of a job opportunity at an early stage, all attempts to make them employable for life are likely to be that much more difficult.
The Select Committee on the European Communities was discussing a report issued by the European Communities. Nevertheless, many of us who served on the committee have come to the conclusion that although, so far as competitiveness is concerned, the Communities and the Union have an important role to play, when it comes to unemployment, most things,, if not all, have to be done at home. It is not good enough simply to have a nice conversation with others who have similar problems. Action begins here.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Caldecote for tabling this Motion and for admirably launching our debate. I found myself in agreement with most of what he said with perhaps one reservation, which I may get an opportunity to mention later.
I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the skill and style with which he chaired sub-committee A of our Select Committee, which produced the report that we are debating this afternoon. His speech touched on many of the issues which concerned us. In order to save the time of the House, and because the noble Lord summed them up in his normal skilful way, I shall not repeat them.

293
The issues before us are considerable. The European White Paper considered growth, competitiveness and employment. As the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said, competitiveness and employment are separate issues. One does not lead to the other. Reading the European White Paper one might imagine that if you have growth you have competitiveness and employment. That is not the case. In fact, the reverse is more true. The more that competitiveness is increased—that means using all the technological advances—the more that you add to unemployment. That is a separate problem.
However, there is really no choice. Our economic history shows that for far too long many of our industries have hung on to old practices and over-large workforces rather than face the pain and the social consequences of unemployment that come from modernisation. As a result, many of our industries, such as coal and steel, and many others both private and public, have suffered severely. It is only in recent years that the painful bullet has been bitten and we have started to have labour forces of a size that will make us really competitive.
However, that has also meant that we have a serious problem with our rate of unemployment. That problem is being tackled, but much more needs to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred earlier to what was being achieved. I find it fascinating and encouraging to know that our rate of growth over the past 10 years has been in excess of that of Germany. Although it is encouraging to know that, we still have to tackle the unemployment problem.
We are faced with world competition from the USA, the European Community, Japan and the Pacific Rim. China is coming on strongly. We are facing competition from countries where labour costs are far lower than ours, where skills and technological aids are available and where research has advanced at an enormous pace. So, we face great challenges. We have a great task ahead of us if we are to hold our market share, let alone increase it. The question is how to do it. I find myself supporting the European Community where it has a role and can help us in this. However, I believe that in finding gainful and proper employment without interfering with our competitiveness we are very much on our own. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on that. We must approach the issue from the national point of view. We cannot go along at the pace of the slowest of the 12 or be restricted in the way that the European Community would seek to restrict us.
We need to examine various aspects. I turn first to research and development. I am glad to know that during the recent years of recession we have increased our expenditure on R&D. That is encouraging, but much more needs to be done. I turn now to innovation. This country has had some great success stories, such as Pharmaceuticals. Our aeronautical industry is also a world leader, and there are many others. However, we still do not have enough such companies. Innovation is essential and we must do more. The Government have a responsibility to create the right climate.
The Government also have a responsibility in terms of their taxation policy. In that connection, I refer to
294
what my noble friend Lord Caldecote said. He suggested that taxation should be more severe on the distribution of dividends than on retentions. I understand his argument. It has been used by many with his experience. However, I believe that it is wrong. I believe that taxing the distribution of dividends on the same basis as retentions enables the recipients to decide whether to leave them in that company or to deploy them in a new company, thus widening the field of investment and research and development. However, I shall not delay your Lordships on that point at this stage. Overall, business taxation within the United Kingdom as a percentage of GDP is better than it is in the USA, the countries of the European Community, and Japan. To the extent of taxation, therefore, the Government are helping to create the climate that industry wants.
Good industrial relations are essential. Fortunately, we have had a very happy period in terms of industrial relations recently and great credit for that must be given to the Government, employers, unions and employees. Productivity is at an all-time high. That is very encouraging. Inflation is low. A great deal has also been done in terms of education and training, with the setting up of, for example, the training and enterprise councils, the lifetime learning schemes and the establishment of the further education funding councils.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde referred to the Government's White Paper. White Papers are no longer so flimsy that they can be put into your pocket; a suitcase is needed in which to carry them. But the White Paper is full of good stuff and I strongly commend all who are interested in the problems of industry, business and commerce to read it. Many lessons can be gained from it. There are many achievements of which we can be proud but there are many areas in which we must do better. But the White Paper is a valuable guide.
I return to the question of Europe. It is a massive market for us, taking over 50 per cent. of our exports. The single market provides many opportunities. Great credit should go to my noble friend Lord Cockfield who brought that about, and I am delighted to see him here today. The single market opens up enormous opportunities and we must make the most of them. The single market must be made to work and there are still things to be done to make it work. We must do all that we can to achieve that.
Europe has moved towards opening its markets in a way that we want it to do; but I contrast that with the way in which it is tending to restrict the supply side and productivity. It wishes to impose conditions and restrictions to make production less easy for us, and to impose obligations on us with regard to our methods of production, industrial relations, and so on, which I find unpalatable. As my noble friend Lord Caldecote said, we need a flexible labour market.
I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is not in his place. He said that he did not understand what we mean by a flexible labour market. Much of that was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. But we mean that it must be made easier for people to move about, to move home, and so on. I had hoped the noble Lord would understand that point. He seemed to be rather fixed upon the Mexican model. I should be

295
intrigued to know what he means by that. If he wishes to impose on the workforce of the United Kingdom labour conditions which are based on the Mexican model, then I believe that he should spell that out. The Labour Party should put that in its next manifesto and should see what support that receives. I doubt whether the noble Lord has studied what has happened in Mexico. He referred to greater equality but in Mexico there is an enormous disparity between extreme wealth and extreme poverty. I am sure that the noble Lord will have an opportunity to justify that at a future date.
In this country we need to retain responsibility for matters which are contained in the social chapter; for example, health and safety, hours of work and so on. It is not for the European Community to dictate to us about those matters. It must not make us move at the pace of the slowest. We wish to move at a pace that we can generate in this vital country of ours. We are not operating behind a ringfence where everything must be sold in Europe and nobody else can come into it. We are operating in a world market and we must equal the best in that world.
I turn now to the subject of unemployment, which is central to today's debate. I do not propose to bandy statistics with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I shall look at what he said and no doubt my noble friend Lord Henley will wish to comment on some of the figures referred to. There are two areas of difficulty. The first is the problem of the young. A great deal is being done to provide training so that young people can obtain work. It is extremely important that everything possible should be done so that the young obtain employment. They must be given opportunities and training. Nothing can be more soul-destroying for them than to find that there is no job awaiting them at the end of their training. I hope that we are moving in the right direction in that regard.
Problems are also created by older employees. For example, an older person may find it more difficult, and take longer, to learn how to work a computer with speed and efficiency. However, the White Paper on competitiveness refers to steps that are being taken in that area. There are lifetime learning schemes and other projects designed to help those people to find useful employment.
Industry has an extremely important role to play in that respect. It is not sufficient to think only of next year's staffing levels. Industry must look much further ahead. I know that when I was chairman of a company we endeavoured to look ahead 15 years. We did not make detailed plans, but we tried to contemplate what would be happening, for example, in the year 2000 or whenever it might be. We had to consider whether we should still need penpushers or whether we should need young people to be trained on computers and in technology. Obviously we could make nothing more than an inaccurate estimate, but we tried to anticipate trends before they arose so that we did not suddenly find that we had employed many young people for whom there would be no prospects in three or four years' time. Alternatively, we tried to make sure that we had not left ourselves in the position in which we had insufficient
296
numbers of young people to train. I believe that industry needs to take a long-term approach, however inaccurate the assessments may be.
Today very few people have jobs which they can be sure will still exist in 10 or 15 years' time. I was thinking about that at lunch today. I cannot see that window cleaning of a domestic building will be taken over easily by some new technology; and I cannot see hairdressing being done by a robot or a computer. Those are the safe jobs, but many others can be mechanised or taken over by technology and we must view that with some caution.
This debate has raised key issues which will be with us for a long time. I know that neither my noble friend Lord Caldecote nor the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, produced the answers to our problems. But they have outlined what are the problems. They have put some ideas on the table on which we have all reflected. But those problems will be with us for a long time in the future.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the report of Sub-Committee A of your Lordships' European Communities Committee was triggered off by the report from the European Commission, Growth, Competitiveness and Employment in the European Community. I pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, for the prodigious task that he undertook and which he successfully completed in going through and calling evidence upon what I think is generally admitted to be a fairly tortuous document. At the same time, I thank and indeed congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, on the extremely interesting and constructive contribution that he was able to make this afternoon on the subject of unemployment.
I was extremely glad that my noble friend Lord Eatwell restored the whole matter to its correct perspective by saying that the dominant issue is the whole question of unemployment rather than that of competitiveness itself. I look forward to the Minister's reply to the arguments advanced by my noble friend.
I wish to discuss the matter this afternoon within the context of the European Community itself, to which I have devoted over 20 years of study and which has remained a constant preoccupation for me. I am rather puzzled as to how the situation in Europe has arisen at all. We were told originally, and have been told consistently, that the main purpose of the Community —aside from its enormous contribution to the preservation of world peace and peace in Europe—was the prospect of increased prosperity in Europe among the member states; increased opportunities; far greater security for its population; and a progressively rising standard of life.
I must say that I have become somewhat disappointed in the matter. As the evidence brought: before the Committee has shown, and which to some extent was reinforced even more pessimistically by the findings of the OECD, the following situation has arisen. After 20 years of the progressive extension of the single market—and, as we know from the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in his most recent and admirable

297
publication, The European Union, the single market has now been completed—one would have expected a different situation from that which was unfolded to the Select Committee but which, I suppose, has been common knowledge for some time.
Unemployment in the European Community is now running at about 20 million. It is predicted that in the not too distant future it might rise to about 23 million. Job creation—and I am using the Commission's own figures —taking the years 1960 to 1973 as 100 is running at 102 compared with 130 in Japan. Growth has declined to 2 per cent. per annum and a sustained rate of 2.5 per cent. is needed just to prevent unemployment from rising. The EC's share of world exports has declined from 24 per cent. to 18 per cent. over the past 20 years and within the EC itself, despite the transfer of funds that has taken place as regards the regional and social funds and so on (which are shortly to be reinforced by cohesion funds), the gap between the richer and poorer countries of Europe still remains.
That is not exactly an encouraging picture. We have been told, and were told again today, that all we really need in Europe is the freeing up of the single market (which has now largely been done), the establishment of even playing fields —whatever that magnificent term may mean—and everything will be all right. However, that has gone on for a long time. Not only has the position not improved—and I am talking about Europe as a whole—but it has actually deteriorated. The whole thing does not square somehow.
The Government say that their own position has improved considerably. In reviewing the report that we produced the Government observed:
"Building on the policies that have proved successful over the last fifteen years"—
I am bound to add a little "ha, ha!" to that—
"the Government aims to create the conditions in which individual enterprises improve their competitiveness and structural unemployment is reduced".
But, once again, that does not entirely tally with the very authoritative views of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who, as noble Lords know, is an expert in such matters. In the same publication to which I referred the noble Lord says that,
"when the Community was founded we had the highest per capita income in Western Europe: today we are poorer than any of the original members of the Community".
That does not sound like a shattering testimonial on the success of the operation. As noble Lords know, I am all for co-operation in Europe among member states and I am all for freeing up trade in so far as that can be done, but I am bound to say that the result is not frightfully impressive. At a later stage I shall invite the House to come to some conclusions as to the situation and offer a few solutions in that respect.
However, there is another factor about which there has been what I can only describe as a conspiracy of silence and to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will undoubtedly reply in due course. I am absolutely certain about it. I refer to the deteriorating balance of payments situation in the United Kingdom which does not seem to have been mentioned in the Government's vindication of their policies within Europe.
298
I do not want to spread undue alarm and despondency among a Stock Exchange which has already appeared to be a little rocky over the past three or four days; and, indeed, would not have touched on the matter in the national interest had it not been referred to in today's Financial Times. However, I am bound to say that it does not sound like a very great testimonial of success. In their response to the White Paper and to the report, the Government claimed that our total visible deficit in 1992 was £13 billion, of which nearly £10 billion was with other EC countries, and that in 1993 the visible trade deficit was, again, £13 billion, with the deficit with the European Community countries standing at £9 billion. Moreover, by the results so far this year, it looks very much as if we shall be running once again at a total trade deficit of £12 billion, with no less than £4 billion from the EC.
I do not want to cavil too much about such matters. However, they do not seem to add up to all the profound success about which we have heard. I do not know what the Minister will have to say, but it does not seem very successful to me. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to our record exports, but he did not seem to recall the fact that during the same period our import bill has increased enormously; nor did he confess to the House the reason for it. Having destroyed, or having been instrumental in destroying, so much of our productive capacity in the 1980s the Government have so decimated British industry that even when demand returns British firms are incapable of meeting it. Hence imports are sucked in.
Although I do not wish to be alarmist, I am bound to put it to the noble Lord that I can recall a time when a deficit of £300 million, let alone £3 billion, was reckoned to be very serious business. I should have thought that the optimism shown by the Government in the matter—and I am all for optimism; indeed, it is a very good thing to have—ought to be tempered by some apprehension as to what may happen unless very drastic steps are taken. Quite clearly, government policies have not been correct. Clearly they have been an abysmal failure in many respects. But, equally so, the Community's institutions have not played a conspicuous part in furthering the interests of the British economy or, indeed, that of Europe as a whole.
So what really has to be done? It is already admitted —the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, pointed this out, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Eatwell—that there is a lack of investment in British industry. There is a lack of investment not only in manufacturing industry and in the service industries but, more particularly, in small businesses. One of the ways in which growth can be put back into the economy is precisely by this investment. However, we must of course bear in mind that most investment on any scale takes about two years to materialise after the plans have first been drafted.
But the Government have given no hint at all that they have even grasped the importance of these very necessary factors on the supply side, to which my noble friend Lord Eatwell referred, let alone that they have considered implementing them. Instead of that, the Government have gone over the familiar ground which for the past half century I have heard so many times and

299
which has now become so repetitive. I am talking of labour flexibility. All the Government really want to do is to cut wages as far as they possibly can and achieve competitiveness in that way. That is the real reason behind their demands for flexibility. What, of course, they have completely forgotten—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is being uncharacteristically tedious on this point. Can he not explain to the House why it is that in this country unemployment is falling while in other countries within the European Community that are still in recession unemployment is still increasing?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Eatwell has already explained the unemployment particulars to the embarrassment of the noble Lord. But may I remind the noble Lord that on his department's fiddled figures unemployment is still double what it was when his party took up office; so I am afraid that horse will not run. No, we have to start once again, as always, from the bottom. We have to go back to the citizens themselves in their localities and we must go back to giving more power to local authorities. We must go back to involving more and more people at the roots of production within their localities. Those are the things we must do.
We must remember that when we try to cut other people's incomes we are at the same time cutting consumer demand. The Government wish to cut consumer demand because they know that through their own inefficiency that will merely lead to a worse adverse balance of payments and a demand for imports. No, these things will not run in the way that they are being put forward by the Government at the present time. But what will work is a sensible look at the unemployment situation as a whole and the adoption of real, actual means of reducing it rather than pretending that it does not exist.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the two speakers who introduced the debate. I wish to thank: the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, particularly because in the terms of his Motion and in his speech he put the emphasis where I think it properly belongs; namely, on the creation of jobs—that is to say, on the remedying of the unemployment situation.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the way in which he introduced the report of the European Communities Select Committee, and particularly the report produced by Sub-Committee A of which he was chairman. I had the pleasure and privilege of participating in the work of that committee, and I pay special tribute to the patience, kindness, good sense and absolute consummate skill with which he led the committee through an extremely difficult subject. We started in perhaps somewhat lighthearted style but quickly discovered that the ramifications of the subject were wide and that finding the right points of emphasis and the right points to bring home to the House was by no means an easy matter. In so far as we have succeeded at all is very much due to the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
300
Perhaps the most important distinction among the various contributions made to the debate, and indeed of the original report of the Commission, the Select Committee's comments on that report and the Government's White Paper has been one of emphasis. The Commission started out by talking about competitiveness, growth, and only in the last resort, employment. The Select Committee report, I believe rightly and properly, redressed that balance. Noble Lords will see in the conclusions of the committee's report that the emphasis is firmly placed on unemployment as the primary problem of our society, of our economy, and of our country, as indeed it is of Europe and, as the committee's report rightly points out, of the industrialised world as a whole.
Unemployment in the OECD area—that is to say in the whole of the really industrialised and advanced world—now stands at about 36 million. That is 9 per cent. of the workforce. Moreover in Europe it has increased in the past four or five years by 50 per cent. Contrary to the situation in the United States, to which one or two speakers have already referred, half of that unemployment is long term—that is to say, it is a year or more in duration. Between 15 and 30 per cent. of the unemployment over the area as a whole is youth unemployment. I am sure everyone here will agree that the figures are extremely disturbing.
Contrary to the emphasis on employment and unemployment, we find that the White Paper of the Commission—I should say straightaway that it is no epoch-making work, and indeed, but for the excellent comment of the Select Committee, the paper might well be quickly forgotten—emphasises very much what is called structural unemployment and competitiveness. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and also, I think, with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, that competitiveness and unemployment are only distantly related, if related at all. For practical purposes, it is better to ignore that particular relationship. However, I would go even further. We have to be extremely careful not to be mesmerised by some of the words which economists, as part of their daily lives, handle with the greatest of ease. Competitiveness is often used as a synonym for what I would term simply efficiency and economic performance. Competitiveness carries with it a certain penumbra of reaction to other people's action. Moreover I think it is responsible for creating a certain amount of mass panic and mass hysteria in regard to emerging markets.
From time to time we have heard people express a certain amount of panic as regards my next point. But I am happy to say that today the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Eatwell, and other speakers have specifically argued against the proposition that we will face competition from the emerging markets such as those in Eastern Europe where low wages are paid, from China, which is expanding at a terrific rate, or from the tigers of South-East Asia and so on. I am happy to say no one has expressed that panic today. I was delighted to hear the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Eatwell, explode that particular fallacy. In fact those

301
markets have already shown, and will increasingly show, that they are excellent outlets for our exports provided we can supply them. That is entirely up to us.
The whole of history has shown the Luddite arguments to be not correct and that, provided we can put our own house in order, we have nothing to fear. I give an example to the House which is rarely mentioned but with which I happen to be familiar—there are many noble Lords here who are familiar with the operations of the Square Mile—and that is the financial services industry. I wonder whether any noble Lord here would claim that the real fear of competition comes from Manila, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, or even from Hong Kong, Singapore, Milan or Paris. No, my Lords, the real competition comes from New York—the most highly developed financial market. That is certainly not a market which is deprived of high salaries and wages. Far from it. It does not compete with us on those grounds.
While I am on the subject, perhaps I may supplement what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said about the question of wage costs and indirect labour costs. There is a widespread myth about these matters, as about so many others in this area. To some extent that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. If one is looking at direct wage costs, indirect labour costs, and the total (as unit labour costs by unit of product), and one wishes to use those figures for the purpose of understanding and explaining why there are differences in economic performance and how far they can be related to the differences in those wage costs, it is no use looking at the average for the Community. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, indicated in greater detail, these differ tremendously from one country of the Community to another.
I have some figures, in Deutschmarks, for the most recent years for which figures are available. The total direct and indirect labour costs in this country are only a little more than half those in Germany. Nobody can say that Germany is competing with us on the basis of low labour costs. The total is one-third less than that of Italy; it is 20 per cent. less than that of France; and it is even slightly below that of Spain. That is a myth which could be quite easily exploded and should not obscure the debate on this subject.
Flexibility of labour markets is another matter on which we have heard so much and on which the Commission White Paper places so much emphasis. Of course the market is an extremely variable social and economic instrument. If we have markets, naturally we want those markets to work as efficiently as possible, with the minimum of friction, bringing supply and demand together as quickly as possible. But to concentrate on flexible labour markets as the only means of curing what, for the sake of convenience, we call structural unemployment—although nobody really knows how to distinguish that from any other type of unemployment—goes against the facts of the situation.
Here again, if we look at Germany and, outside Europe, at Japan, for example, both those countries have far more rigid labour markets than we have.
302
Furthermore, if we look at the increase in unemployment in Europe in the past four or five years—which I said earlier was 50 per cent.—it is unrealistic to suppose that that is in some way or other due to a sudden upsurge in rigidity in labour markets over four years. That simply cannot be the case.
Therefore, we must be extremely careful not to fall into the trap of identifying structural unemployment with rigidity of labour markets and cyclical unemployment with macro-economic policies, which sometimes are restrictionist as they have been in the past five years as a response to over lax policies in a previous period which have to be corrected but which perhaps have been over corrected.
I suggest that we have to be extremely careful with these economic concepts. They ought to have "handle with care" written all over them, and should be preceded by a very powerful health warning.
I cannot help but recall what happened with the exchange rate mechanism as an example of what is so easily said and leads to misunderstanding. We had entered the exchange rate mechanism at an exchange rate which, by all accounts, we had not discussed with anybody else and which proved to be far too high. However, right up to the moment when we were forced off the exchange rate mechanism we were told that it was the most marvellous thing, that it provided stability and was the basis for economic prosperity. The day after we left the exchange rate mechanism we were told that at last we now had a fiercely competitive exchange rate. If one goes back and forth within 24 hours in that way it is no wonder that the public are completely confused.
Perhaps I may say that that is not the monopoly of any single party. I am old enough to remember 11th September 1933 when Philip Snowden, the "Iron Chancellor", went on the radio and told us that thanks to the energetic actions of the Government and the Bank of England the menace that had been overhanging our fate for weeks—namely, that we might be forced off the gold standard—had been averted and that terrible catastrophe had not happened. Nine days later we came off the gold standard and we were on a floating exchange rate at the beginning of the war. This is an inanity which we could save ourselves in the future.
I turn finally to the question of our own conduct in these matters. With due acknowledgment to Hamlet, I invite your Lordships to
"Look here, upon this picture, and on this".
I have with me two White Papers. One is unmistakably so, although, having just had its 50th birthday and having been printed on wartime paper, it has gone slightly yellow. The other, printed exactly 50 years later, is the recent White Paper to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred. It is an excellent document with many excellent things in it. The earlier White Paper cost 6d when it was published which, I am reliably informed, would today be the equivalent of £1. Her Majesty's Government are charging £15.40 for the recent White Paper. The price of the document is 15 times the inflation rate.
Physically, the current White Paper is a much more elegant document. It does not quite come up to the promotion of holiday homes in the Caribbean; but, on

303
the whole, it is a very handsomely produced paper. It has some very good things in it on the flexibility of labour markets and the almost ritual advocacy of more education and training, which of course nobody would be against any more than they would be against motherhood or sliced bread. Unfortunately, the document tells us very little about how we come out of the recession. Rather like the White Paper of the European Commission, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, it takes the view that once we are out of the recession, then all these structural and long-term measures can be used to reduce structural unemployment and to avoid it.
I find that regrettable. I am sorry that the one point in the committee's report which the Government have decided to challenge is precisely the point of giving priority to getting out of the recession. I understand the fears of rekindling inflation and all the rest of it. However, in many people's minds the 50 year-old document, which is largely the intellectual product of Keynes and Beveridge—both in their day Members of this House—is regarded as the bible of dirigisme and the command economy and an invitation to unbridled inflation and lax financial policy. It is nothing of the sort. If there were more time, I would give your Lordships a number of quotations from the document, particularly on the need for wage restraint, the need to ensure stable prices and wages if employment policy is to work, and so on and so forth.
I know that the authors of that document, particularly Keynes, are not as highly regarded nowadays and their memory cherished as it should be. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who is to speak later in the debate and who is the distinguished biographer of Keynes, will redress the balance. For my part, when I read the 1944 White Paper, I can only hope that the White Paper which the Government have now produced 50 years later will have something like the seminal influence of the earlier White Paper. For my part, as regards Keynes, I have often been tempted, paraphrasing Wordsworth on Milton, to say: "Maynard! thou shouldst be living at this hour. England hath need of thee".
5.9 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, like all other noble Lords, I should like to add my grateful thanks to my noble friend Lord Caldecote and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter. Since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have wondered why as a debating Chamber we do not spend more time debating this kind of issue. I appreciate that your Lordships' House can do nothing on finance. On the other hand, there is a wealth of experience in this House which would be of immense value to those in another place with regard to our present and future finance. In that regard, I am doubly grateful to my noble friend Lord Caldecote for initiating the debate.
One factor that we have to avoid is the creation of false jobs. In our economic history there has been the creation of false jobs. But if a false job is created, the cost eventually falls on the taxpayer and consequently the economy falls. As has been said, in the past 18
304
months unemployment has fallen by some 310,000. That has been achieved because of the background created by the Government. Inflation has fallen. That in turn helps future planning, which is good for the economy. Interest rates are down. That again helps investment and future investments. Manufacturing production has been increasing over the year. It is a good sign, although I accept that it is not the end of the road.
We should not overlook the enormous advantage that the economy gains from our invisible earnings—a point referred to indirectly by the noble Lord, Lord Roll— running at a rate of just under £19 billion a year. That indeed helps our economy. Our exports outside the European Community have been increasing by some 15 per cent. One might say that that is not enough. Again, it is not the end of the road, but it is a good indicator.
In many cases technology in the first instance saves labour. However, if one reads the report of the European Communities Committee, one sees that technology eventually leads to growth. One way—it is a long-term way—in which the Government can get unemployment down is to look to small businesses such as the one-man band, the five-man band, the 50-man band, and so on. We must look to small businesses. I remind noble Lords that since 1979 the number of small businesses has increased by 600,000. That in itself must have produced 1.2 million employed people. If we could persuade the 600,000 small businesses, if they were productive, each to take on five more people we would see a magnificent drop in our unemployment figures.
The Government have helped small businesses. That has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Boardman. The reduction in corporation tax from 52 per cent. to 33 per cent. is good. For small businesses the top rate has come down from 40 per cent. to 25 per cent. The limit for a small business has been increased to £300,000. As has been said, our company tax is the lowest in the European Union and indeed in the Group of Seven. However, we must remember that, while it is good that corporation tax should come down, one has to make a profit before one benefits from that reduction.
The result of technology has been referred to. It increases production in many cases. One has only to look at the car industry. Today one production worker in the car industry produces the equivalent of 34 cars in a year. In 1991 he produced only 10.4 cars. In Germany he produces about 30.8. That is one concrete example where technology and good management in the car industry have brought about increased production. It is expected that the car industry will be a net exporter in 18 months to two years.
Much of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, dealt with competition. I agree with what he said. One has only to look at the nationalised industries which disguised much unemployment because of overmanning. In that sense competition creates unemployment. On the other hand, unless we are competitive, producing the product at a price at which we can sell it, we shall have unemployment. We have to gain new markets; and we can gain new markets only if

305
we are competitive. In this country our unit cost of production is very low. It has risen 0.2 per cent. in the past year.
I must refer to the myth of the social chapter. Our competitors accept this fact. The Germans have said it; the French have even said it. The social chapter is bound to increase the unit cost of production across our economy. How can anyone say, "We must get unemployment down", when we make employment even more expensive? The chances are that unemployment will rise; I am sure that it will. The same remarks apply to the minimum wage. The minimum wage would be disastrous for this country.
Perhaps I may refer to the reform of the trade unions. Your Lordships know that records relating to strikes started in 1891. We now have the lowest number of strikes in this country since that date purely because of our trade union reform. That is one of the reasons why we have such a huge amount of inward investment. We gain inward investment from Japan, Germany and the USA. One of the reasons for their inward investment in this country is that our corporation tax is the lowest in the European Union. Our unit labour costs are down. One factor upon which we should insist—it affects our competitive and employment position in the long run —is that our European partners do not pay subsidies, hidden or otherwise, to some of their industries because such subsidies give them a competitive edge in whatever they produce—steel, motor cars or whatever else.
I understand that the Government are considering workfare—for want of a better word. Many of us cannot understand why there are many vacancies not being filled. If there was some form of workfare, there would be encouragement for some unemployed people to take up such vacancies, albeit temporarily.
Technical education has been referred to. This country leads Europe in technology teaching in our schools. Some 99 per cent. of children have some technology teaching. That is a good thing.
I refer to city technology colleges and further education. The amount that we spend on further education has risen dramatically. Next year it will be just under £3 billion. At the moment my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is engaged in controlling public expenditure and getting ready for the Autumn Budget.
If one looks at the reports which come from the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the chambers of commerce, they are all optimistic. They do not suggest that all our troubles are over, but they are optimistic. As regards small businesses, there could be a large expansion if their cash flow position could be improved. To my personal knowledge, many small businesses could expand but cannot because they cannot get their money in, such is their cash flow position. At Question Time today my noble friend said that government departments had instructions to accelerate payments to small businesses within credit terms. That should also apply to local authorities because it is not right to have to wait a year before one finds out whether the Ministry of Agriculture has paid out to farmers whatever they
306
were due or whether the Department of Health has paid its suppliers. I am not a lawyer, but legal aid payments are well behind and I am sure that noble Lords who are solicitors and barristers will bear me out on that.
Another thing that the Government must do for small businesses is something on which they have made a start. It is to be ruthless with the various regulations to which small businesses are subjected. In many cases, with a small one-man-band business, the employer will have only one man working, but he has forms to fill in. He may have only his wife to help him, and he may have to waste time filling in unnecessary forms. That is a point which we should examine.
However, all is not doom and gloom. We do our economy no good in always professing doom and gloom. No government can manufacture jobs. All they can do is to create the economic climate in which businessmen can flourish and prosper. I am certain that this Government are doing just that.
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, for the debate today. It is timely, as is the report which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is presenting to us. It is timely because I suggest that unemployment is the most serious problem with which we have to grapple in Britain. It is not just a case of people being out of work. It is the social scars which it inflicts on our society, with juvenile crime and the pressure on families with low pay, as well as the spiralling welfare costs.
If we went back 10 or 15 years, many Members of this House would not directly have known someone who was unemployed; we may not have felt unemployment in the midst of our own families. Looking round the Chamber today at Peers on all sides and thinking of the people listening, I am sure that every single one of us must know someone within our own families or the inner circle of our friends who has been affected by unemployment. All too often it is young people. So the debate is timely.
It is also timely because of the conference in Corfu this weekend. The 7th Report comes from the European Commission's White Paper of last year. It is one of the documents from the Commission which has, unusually, attracted to itself a tremendous degree of support from differing political views. I regret, of course, that the Government do not accept all the views in the report.
Paragraph 108 in Part 3 of the report gives the opinion of the committee that competitiveness is essential to growth; but the committee did not believe that lack of growth or loss of competitiveness on their own were sufficient to explain the high level of unemployment. How true that is. I strongly support that view.
The White Paper says that member states should not deregulate their labour markets but reregulate them to prevent a competitive downward spiral. The noble Viscount rightly picked up the crucial role that investment has to play in any kind of economic success in a company, whether small or large. That investment must include investment in people, in their abilities, their training for new skills and ongoing continual life

307
education in the vocational requirements that we have both as individuals and as a society. I would go so far as to suggest that as individuals in the wealth creating process we have a right to be trained in skills, not just having to depend upon whether the employer decides to provide it.
The successful companies in Britain are not all small companies. Many are public, and they are longstanding companies, highly successful not just in UK terms but in world competitive terms. They spend much of their income on training, but in Britain we have a pretty poor record on training. That has been so through the decades. It is not just related to the present day.
I have reached a certain point in my notes. I suppose that we have all been in this situation. We may have been to meetings and decided what we will say, but at some point we tear up our notes because of something a previous speaker has said. For reasons of which we may all be aware, the noble Lord, Lord Clark, mentioned the social chapter, the minimum wage and the reform of trade unions. Some of those are bogeymen which belong way back in the past. They are views which, frankly, have no relevance to what we have in Britain today.
Let us take the social chapter. Germany has far higher wage costs than Britain—80 per cent. more in many instances —yet they compete with us substantially better than many other countries. The social chapter has been a way of maintaining minimum standards in Europe, yet we are still outside it. Whether there is acceptance of the Social Charter as a policy or we accept it step by step, Britain will take on board the Social Charter because any kind of civilised community will have to do that. The successful countries are those which have good employment policies and good wage standards. You cannot get highly skilled workers if you pay them very low wages. They will not stay with you. They will go to the competition.
On the minimum wage, let us look at our experience in this country. We have not had a minimum wage as such. What we had was the wages councils, which covered 2½ million already low-paid people. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, hoped that the debate would not separate into arguments about manufacturing. The people covered by the minimum wage were those in the service sector, many of them earning between £2.50 and £3.70 per hour, which was not a prince's ransom to work for. What happened? The Government said that the minimum wage had to be abolished to maintain competition, to create jobs. There is no evidence that the elimination of the wages councils has created employment. But there is evidence that in the run-up to the abolition of the councils, something like 7,000 companies reduced the already low wages of their workers who were covered by the wages councils.
Let us look at the reform of trade unions. This is an old hobby-horse and at some point Members opposite will have to say: "We really can't take this one out again". It is nonsense. Trade unions are voluntary organisations of which individual workers are members. If the trade unions have so much power, why do we have so much unemployment in Britain? The Government shamefully took away those rights from workers in this
308
country. Removing them did not create a situation in which the Government have now delivered a good economy and high employment. We have more poverty: 40 per cent. of all workers in Britain receive welfare benefits. That is some credit to the Government when they talk about the reform of trade unions! Let us deal with the situation that we are in today.
This has been a first-class debate. Any unemployed person in Britain who listened to it would be encouraged by the concern that has been expressed within this Chamber. But to talk about "Luddite attitudes" is to trivialise the debate. The very people who bring change about and make it work are the workers themselves. They are part of the wealth creation process. It is not the achievement of management alone. If I learnt anything in industry it was that successful companies were those that respected their workforce, trained them well and worked as a team with their workforce.
It is said that change is uncomfortable. I used to believe —and perhaps it is appropriate today—that people who said to me that change was uncomfortable were usually those who were not affected by it. They did not understand just how profound an effect some of the most brutal changes in industrial life have had. As a result of the elimination of workers' rights we now have a situation in Britain in which wages can be cut without any kind of consultation—and it happens. We have a situation in which workers can be called in to a management office and be told: "We know you work 40 hours a week. Sorry, we don't need you to do that any more. From next week it's 30 hours a week" As a result, those people are in the poverty trap. Within this whole area of the rights of employees, quite frankly, the pendulum has swung to the extreme. There is no way that we shall have a successful economy, with everybody pulling in the same direction—which is what we have to bring about—if we have lots of people who are unemployed and also those in work feel alienated and are stigmatised by being told that their wages are too high and that they have to be dropped if the firm is to compete.
We talk about cutting wages in order to compete. Quite rightly, the instance of Malaysia was mentioned. A couple of weeks ago I looked at some pay comparisons in the shoe component industry. In China, the average hourly rate is 50 cents an hour; in the USA it is five dollars. I have to ask: how low do we go in terms of wages before we say that we can compete? Competition is not just about wages. It is about the total unit cost: quality of management; energy policy; quality of transport policy. All those aspects go towards making a competitive nation.
Let us look again very briefly at investment. I believe that it is at the core of what we are talking about. I do not just mean investment in capital and equipment but also investment in people. If we compare wage rate with wage rate we should compare dividends. In Germany and Japan companies pay out on average something like 35 per cent. of profits in dividends. In the USA it is about 53 per cent. In Britain companies are under pressure, because of the financial markets, to pay out something like 70 per cent. in dividends. Would it not help with job creation, through investment in skills and

309
equipment, to say that that is not right and that we should plough more of that money back into the companies?
I suggest that the workforce in Britain is not opposed to change, as has been implied. The workforce in Britain wants change. It is ready for change. It needs change. And that change must be brought about through looking at the whole situation. There are no magic answers. We all know that. There are no simple answers. We need to reverse our record on training. We need training in skills for all: men and women, part-time and full-time workers, whether they are in casual employment or not. We need to develop an ethos of social partnership. I know that to some people that may sound repugnant. But social partnership is, in other words, what is applied in very successful companies in Britain today. It is not good enough continually to browbeat. We need to recognise the problem, as this debate is doing today. We need to recognise that it is a national problem; that it applies to all of us; and that it is not subject to political dogma or anything else. I suggest that the levels of unemployment and the lack of job creation go to the core of our society, not just in economic, industrial and commercial terms, but in social terms as well.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Caldecote for the way in which he introduced this debate. We have already heard a number of very notable speeches—not a word of which, I fear, will be reported in the national press. Not least among those speeches was that of the noble Lord, Lord Roll. The noble Lord held up a copy of the employment White Paper of 1944 to remind us of the hopes that that document aroused in the generation that came victorious out of war.
The noble Lord will remember that in that White Paper two conditions were stated for maintaining a high and stable level of employment. One of them was moderation in wage bargaining, and the second was mobility of labour. Alas, it is possible to get into the position where Keynesian policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Roll, and others have understood it for many years, becomes unusable. I believe that we have got into that position. We had got into it by the middle of the 1970s. When I think of Keynes—which is quite often, as I have not yet finished writing about him—I find myself thinking less and less of what he said in 1930 or 1936, or indeed in 1920, and more and more of what a mind as flexible and nimble as his would be thinking today.
I want to defend a great deal of what the Government have been doing, and it seems to me that the best form of defence is attack. Perhaps I may first take up the interesting point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
The noble Lord said that what he called disguised unemployment in the United States, and actual unemployment in Europe, were both symptoms of the same thing; namely, a failure to adapt to change—
Lord Eatwell: Perhaps I may—
Lord Skidelsky: Perhaps I may continue with this argument; I think that I have got it right. There is much more to be said about this issue of disguised unemployment than the noble Lord said.
There is a story about a British economist who went to see an American economist. (Perhaps the British economist was the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.) He said to the American economist: "This is a terrible country. My taxi driver is an unemployed accountant". The American economist said: "Well, if he's driving a taxi, I would call him a taxi driver". There is a very important difference in those two attitudes. The American view is summed up in the phrase "flexibility of labour". It seems to me that it is incredibly condescending to call jobs in pizza parlours non-jobs, unreal jobs or disguised unemployment. Masses of people all over the world must long for jobs in pizza parlours—especially in Russia, where they have been stuck in jobs that have produced unwanted output for decade after decade. The noble Lord's attitude to disguised unemployment betrays a very deep feeling, which is found not only in the Labour Party, that the only real jobs are manufacturing jobs and that services do not provide real jobs. I find that attitude completely wrong.
I wish the Labour Party well in its dynamic policy for a dynamic society, about which the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, spoke. I was interested to read in The Times today that Mrs. Beckett spent most of last week calling for trade union laws to be swept away and supporting secondary picketing. I look forward to many more dynamic policies of that kind. But it demonstrates that one cannot take completely on trust what the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said about the completely revised Labour Party attitude to trade unions. There are forces within the party which want to bring back the unions to the position that they occupied in the 1970s, when they helped to produce the stagnant society that we had at that time. So we cannot ignore that problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, called for more investment. We all agree. Everyone agrees that there should be more investment. But we have also learnt from the experience of the past 20 or 30 years that investment can be wasted. Investment that is politically allocated can be wasted investment. Locking resources into unprofitable enterprises which can be supported only by subsidy is wasted investment. It has happened all over the world. It was the essence of the way in which the Soviet economy worked. In the 1970s bits of it operated in the public sector in this country and in much of Europe.
That takes us back to the problem of European unemployment, which is the subject of today's debate. It is a depressing fact that unemployment has been rising in Europe ever since the 1970s. It first began to rise in the 1970s and rose much higher during the recession in the 1980s, and it never fell below 8 per cent. It is now over 11 per cent. The interesting contrast, to which other noble Lords have pointed, has been between Europe, the United States and Japan. In 1975 unemployment in Europe was 4.1 per cent; in America it was 8.2 per cent; and in Japan it was 1.8 per cent. That reflected a ranking which had more or less existed since the 1950s. In the 1960s as well, Europe and Japan were fast growing,

311
whereas the United States was slow growing. By 1985 unemployment in the European Community was 10.9 per cent., whereas in the United States it was 7.1 per cent. and in Japan it remained down at 2.6 per cent. Today, Europe's unemployment is 11.2 per cent., the United States' unemployment is 6.5 per cent. and Japan's unemployment is 2.8 per cent.
There has been a complete reversal of pattern over that period of 20 years. We see the same thing in real growth rates. Over the period 1982 to 1993, Japan remains at the top with 3.8 per cent. but now America is growing slightly faster than Europe—at 2.4 per cent. compared with 2.2 per cent.—over the 1980s. As has been pointed out, the relationship between growth and employment is very different in the two societies. America has created 20 million new jobs since 1982 whereas the EC has created just over 2 million. America has had growth with jobs; Europe has had growth without jobs. That is reflected in long-term unemployment. The difference is amazing. In 1991 there were 50 per cent. out of work for over a year in the EC compared with 6.3 per cent. in America. What does that mean? It simply means that inflows into the labour market and outflows from it are much lower in Europe than in the United States and Japan.
The United Kingdom's performance is intermediate between the two. It approximates more closely to the European than to the American norm. Since 1982 the growth in our real incomes has been slightly higher than the EC average. Our unemployment rate has been identical. We have been better at creating new jobs. That is reflected in our lower percentage of long-term unemployed—between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. compared with 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. in the EC.
It is too early to say that that amounts to an economic miracle. But if that record is taken against the background of the two or three previous decades when Britain was steadily losing ground in relative terms against every other country of a similar kind, clear evidence emerges that our relative economic decline has been halted and may even have been reversed. That is one indisputable economic achievement of Conservative Governments in an international situation which has been much more difficult for all countries than it was during the golden age of the 1950s and 1960s.
There is no general agreement on how to return to fuller or higher employment. But some agreement is emerging on two points. First, there is general agreement that the high levels of European unemployment are not a transitional problem. They are not the result, however painful, of disinflationary policies. The evidence for that is that America too went into a savage recession in the early 1980s, just like Europe, but American job creation since then has been much better than Europe's. So we accept that it is a structural problem and a structural problem is created, on the one hand, by subsidies to unviable enterprises and, on the other hand, by regulations and labour market rigidities which prevent new jobs being created. There is general agreement on that according to many of the reports that have been cited this afternoon.
312
There is also general agreement on another point; namely, that national authorities cannot buck the market, by which I mean the global financial market. That is the main practical argument against using short-term counter-cyclical policy to increase employment. As the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, remarked in a speech a couple of days ago, to which I shall return later because I think that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, misrepresented his argument,
"Recent events in [the bond market] have demonstrated all too clearly the power of global financial markets to impose their will on any national government that is suspected … of financial imprudence or weakness of resolve in the battle against inflation".
Some people say that we must try to get international control over international finance by setting up international institutions or regimes or by co-ordinating policies. Some of the arguments for European monetary union go along those lines. I believe that that is very much the view of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. But apart from the practicability of those grand designs, we must not suppose that those who want to clip the wings of international finance are at the same time in favour of reinstating discretionary macro-economic management. One has only to look at the Maastricht Treaty to realise that that is not the intention.
In other words, there is no intellectual or political basis for a revival of Keynesian policy of the old type. It was sunk by inflation. That is the fact that we have to live with. I yield to no one in my admiration of Keynes, but it is no use invoking his name now on behalf of things that cannot be done.
We come to the third area of agreement: the only way to raise employment is through what is called supply side policy—what the Delors Report calls "structural policy". The recent OECD report, to which reference has been made, refers to a range of such policies, going all the way from deregulating markets to active government help to get the unemployed back to work.
This Government rightly welcomed large parts of the OECD report because Britain has gone further down the path of deregulation than the EC as a whole. That is reflected in the better recent macro-economic performance of this country. Indeed, though the Delors White Paper pays lip service to deregulation, its main emphasis is on micro-economic planning of one kind or another for increased employment in line with the socialist beliefs of the Commission's president.
Am I being completely heretical in thinking that we have more to learn at present from America and Japan than from Europe? We can learn from America about labour market flexibility and from Japan about flexible work practices within firms. We should be wary of locking ourselves irretrievably into the stagnant, over-regulated enterprise which is what the EC is at the moment. It does not seem to me that that is where our future inevitably lies. An immense struggle is going on in the EC between free trade and protectionism. We should be on the side of the free traders, but we must recognise that we may not win that battle and then a decision will have to be made.
Let me turn to my final point. My noble friend Lord Lawson made a speech a couple of days ago from which both I and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, quoted. In that

313
speech he praised the American achievement in job creation in the 1980s. He did not say that our unemployment was preferable to the lower-wage job creation that has been going on in the United States. He recognised that the market-clearing wage rates for unskilled workers in this country or in Europe may be too low to give workers a living wage and he said that an employment-increasing policy may require non-wage income support for the lowest paid workers. That is exactly what Professor James Meade has been urging; it is exactly what Sir Samuel Brittan has said; that is, if we want to make fuller employment via lower wages or wider wage dispersals socially acceptable, we must find some non-wage means of support.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that there are no magic or easy answers. But we have started on the right course and it is that course that we need to follow.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in the past few minutes the debate has been enlivened by some interesting contributions. Perhaps I can say in passing that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, certainly is being heretical when he talks in terms of us learning from the Americans and the Japanese. I believe that the British people would favour the European model of society compared with that of either the Americans or the Japanese. When we consider the horrendous number of people that are shot and the drug culture that exists in large parts of America, I am not sure that we would like to emulate that society. When we look at the situation in Japan we see that the inefficiencies of the domestic distribution market industries are horrific compared with the distribution industries in Europe or this country, and I am not sure that the British people would like to experience that. It demonstrates that we should be looking at a much wider and deeper picture than just employment.
The debate symbolises not only the difficulties of deliberations in this House, but also the attractions. One of the difficulties is that when a number of grey-haired old men talk on a subject, there is a risk that they will be innately conservative and short-sighted about it. But given the age and experience in this House, we also have the advantage of the historical dimension. I should like to concentrate my remarks on the possibility that we may learn from history.
The debate is about the difference between monetarism and Keynesianism—though I suspect a rather different Keynesianism than the one visualised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky; fundamentally the difference between money and people. That is where I see the fault lines of this debate. For those who think of money as being the most important aspect, people also become a problem. The fact that one must pay them means that one loses money and the less one can pay them, the more money one can keep for oneself. Effectively, it encourages a devaluation of people, whereas, if we think of people as being valuable and important, as an asset and not a liability, unemployment becomes an example of wasted assets.

314
I was glad that my noble friend Lord Eatwell introduced into the debate the information that I intended to impart. I do not need to go into it in as much detail. We should think of unemployment not just as reflected in the figures that the Government produce of those that are unemployed and receiving benefits; we should look at the wider definition of those that are not effectively in productive activity. If we look at that as a definition, we can see that instead of an unemployment rate of between 10 and 15 per cent., the unemployment rate is nearer 25 per cent. The realisation that mat is the real figure shows the tremendous problems with which we are faced.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord says that we only have one count of unemployment and that that is based on those claiming benefits of one form or another. I can assure the noble Lord that he is mistaken. There are two counts of unemployment; one is produced quarterly—the labour force survey—and does exactly what the noble Lord feels should be done. I can assure the noble Lord that the figures it produces are broadly comparable with what comes out once a month on a count.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I obviously did not explain myself well enough for the Government to understand. I suspect that the Government will not understand no matter how one explains the situation. They seem to be almost completely blinkered to seeing the situation in any other way than through their own preconceived notions.
Going back to the historical context, I should like to touch on two periods of British history where our society underwent immense technical change. I want to demonstrate that in both those periods high levels of employment were sustained but in slightly different regimes.
However, there was one common thread which I hope to draw out for your Lordships. I refer, first, to the experience of this country during the Industrial Revolution. It will be accepted that that was a period of immense technological change, with the advent of textile machinery and later on the advent of steam engines, railways and so on. Instead of creating a vast reservoir of almost permanent mass unemployment, that experience increased employment. The number of people employed in the British economy rose steadily —in fact, in some cases, in leaps and bounds. One of the features of that period was massive investment. We can still see the products of that investment today. We can see the railway infrastructure that was built in the last century. We can see the railway stations, the town halls, the schools and the hospitals that were built in that period of massive investment. One of the factors which appertained in that period was that the profits made were invested back into the country. They were not squandered on what I would call conspicuous consumption.
The next period I want to mention is from approximately 1940 —although perhaps starting a little earlier—to 1975. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, mentioned the mid-1970s. I am sure there is fairly general agreement that that was a break-point not only

315
for the British economy but for the whole of the industrialised world. In the 25 or 30 years up to 1975 we had once again a period of immense technological change. During the period we had virtually full employment.
Perhaps I may touch on some of the changes that occurred. In the run-up to that period millions of people were employed in agriculture. With the introduction of new technology—tractors, combine harvesters and new methods of farming—the number of people employed in agriculture fell by millions. In coal-mining there was the same kind of investment in new machinery and technology and millions of people who were employed in coal-mining ceased to be employed. On the railways there was massive investment in new technology, with the change from steam to electric propulsion. At the same time we saw the introduction into mass markets of aircraft, motor cars, radios, televisions, washing machines, refrigerators and telephones. There was an immense explosion of new technology. However, during the period there was virtually no unemployment. Unemployment was so low as to be deemed virtually not there.
One of the keys of that period was investment: investment in the nationalised industries: the mines, the railways, the airlines and electricity and gas generation. There was not so good investment in shipbuilding and steel production because those were not nationalised. Housing, education and health services also received massive public investment. In the main, investment in the production of aircraft, motor cars, radios, televisions and so on was private investment. The expanding markets for those products provided the finance.
What has happened over the past 10 or 15 years? We have seen new technology continue to come on stream, if I may put it like that. We have seen massive changes in information systems and in the whole area of bio-technology, the understanding of genes and so on. However, the product of the past 10 or 15 years has been mass unemployment right around the industrialised world. Perhaps I may suggest that part of the reason for that mass unemployment is that, while profits have been generated, they have not been invested. One of the symptoms of our society during that period was conspicuous consumption. People earning large telephone number salaries spent their money on more expensive motor cars and on more expensive wine. It was a champagne society. Unfortunately, some of them spent large amounts of money on snorting cocaine. There was virtually no investment by those people who earned those large sums of money and therefore there was nothing to show for it. At the same time there was no hope for the rising number of people who were unemployed or sinking into poverty. The shift in wealth and income from the poor to the rich has effectively impoverished us all. There have not been the products of investment that one might have hoped for.
What can we do about that situation? First, we can get our facts right. As I have mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, flagged up the fact that the unemployment rate is now 25 per cent. rather than between 10 and 15 per cent. We have a much larger reservoir of people who could be productive and who could provide goods and
316
services for society. Secondly, we should value people as assets and resources, not liabilities. Part of the way we can value people is to shift the proportion of income and wealth towards the poorer members of our society and ensure that there is a more equitable distribution. Thirdly, we should identify the needs of individuals, families, communities and society at large. We face an ecological problem of world dimensions. We need to recognise the needs of society. Then we should devise policies that help to meet the needs of those individuals, those families, those communities and the wider society with the resources we have at our disposal. Let us value those millions of people who are currently unemployed and unvalued, and let us help them to help all of us.
As I said, we need to go through those processes as a nation, bearing in mind that one of the elements of this debate is the European dimension. I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made in that when one looks at the statistics, it does not appear that the development and apparent progress of the European Union has benefited us or the other members of the European Community at all. Unemployment and balance of payments difficulties have grown, and so on. One might argue that that is not very surprising given that the resources available for the European Community to command amount to between only 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. of the gross national product of the European Union.
One of the ways in which we could provide more resources for the European Union to benefit the people of Europe is to enable it to borrow money and to expend it on investment that would benefit the whole of the Community. That is one of the key things which could be done at European level.
I have gone on far too long. I shall not give a prescription of what we could do at a national and local level; but in my remarks I have set down some of the factors which we need to take into account, and some of mechanisms which we need to employ, in order to make progress and to deal with the problem of the devaluation of people in our society. There is a need to change our philosophy and way of looking at things. We need to value people more than we value money.
6.11 pm.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, sitting on your Lordships' sub-committee I became increasingly concerned—even more than I was before—at the intractability of the figures relating to unemployment in Europe and in Britain. I too am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Caldecote for introducing this subject —with very appropriate emphasis on technology—and to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing the report and for chairing the committee's investigations so effectively. I would like to echo his thanks to those who gave time to testify before the committee and also to those who helped us, particularly the specialist adviser, Mr. Paul Richards.
The United Kingdom unemployment figure may be somewhat less than the European Community average and it certainly does not rival that of Spain. But it is of concern when we look to the. future because it is clear that the problem is not going to go away. It is very

317
difficult to balance what is cyclical or secular and what is structural. There has been some discussion about that already this evening. It is widely agreed that about half the unemployment in the European Community at the moment is structural and therefore will not disappear simply with the economic upturn in which this country is leading the way in relation to the European Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, drew attention to the figures. I would like to emphasise the point that employment intensity of growth in the economy in Europe is of the order of 2 per cent. As noble Lords will be aware, that means that the economy has to grow by more than 2 per cent. before we are going to employ more people and reduce unemployment. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 20 of our report:
"The Commission regards the present 'potential rate of growth' (that is, the rate at which the Community can grow for many years without overheating) as just over 2 per cent. This has fallen over the past 25 years from 4.5 per cent. per annum. However, the rate of growth required to prevent unemployment from rising is 2.5 per cent. per annum".
That point has been touched on and it is central to our discussion. The commission estimates that the potential rate at which the Community can grow for many years without overheating is 2 per cent., and that was not contradicted before our committee. It was alluded to by many witnesses. Yet at the same time there is a consensus that the rate of growth required to prevent unemployment from rising is 2.5 per cent. per annum.
No doubt, as the economy takes an upturn in this country—and we hope very soon after in Europe as a whole—there will be some reduction in unemployment. That will be in cyclical unemployment. The point which is very clear is that if these figures are correct (and they were not disputed) structural unemployment is not going to be reduced. We have been speaking about growth and we are certainly in a situation where we can expect sustained growth in the economy. I very much support the observations made by my noble friend the Minister in his contribution to the debate.
The first point I wish to emphasise is a nettle which I do not believe is sufficiently well grasped; namely, that if these figures are right—they are not simply pulled from some little subsection of the report; they were central to the discussion—we cannot expect in the ordinary course of events (unless the growth potential for Britain and Europe is increased substantially) to have a significant or rapid reduction in structural unemployment.
Then how are we to raise the potential growth rate? One or two noble Lords have emphasised, rightly, the classical response of increased investment. The investment ratio within the European Community has fallen by 5 per cent., from 24 per cent. to 19 per cent. of GDP, in recent years. It must surely be the case that in this country and in Europe as a whole it is crucial to increase investment, although no doubt, as my noble friend Lord Skidelsky implied, it has to be productive investment which is going to be of some use.
The Government responded to the European Community White Paper in their own paper dealing with competition and employment, The UK Approach. I
318
do not know whether it is a White Paper. As the noble Lord, Lord Roll, implied, it is very difficult to be clear these days what is a White Paper. But it is certainly a government paper with much of value in it. But there is very little reference to capital investment. It rightly stresses investment in skills, which I am sure is something we would all agree with.
I believe that nobody so far in this debate has mentioned the role of technology in the national curriculum, which is an innovation of recent years. It is very much to be welcomed. I am sure that the Government are on course for investment in skills. But in response to the European White Paper they did not place much emphasis on investment in capital and so forth. Such a reference might be valuable.
We are facing what I believe to be the paradox of our time, which a number of noble Lords have emphasised, including the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and my noble friend Lord Boardman. It is the paradox that productivity can be the enemy of employment and the friend of unemployment. When there is improved technology and if it is labour saving, it increases productivity because productivity is partly labour saving. One kind of productivity is purely labour saving. It enhances competitiveness, on which noble Lords on both sides of the House have laid emphasis this evening. Competitiveness certainly leads to growth. In some cases growth may lead to jobs. That is perhaps the hope which has led to an overemphasis on competitiveness in this debate, as one or two noble Lords have already indicated.
It is clear that productivity can be the enemy of high employment. Productivity is clearly a good thing, as is competitiveness. I fully support the observations of my noble friend the Minister when he stresses the effective steps which the Government are taking to enhance competitiveness. We must have economic growth because we must have prosperity. If we have prosperity, we can have a high national average income, but that in itself does not tell us very much about unemployment.
If I may venture a criticism of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, to which I listened with great interest and profit, I felt that he was not able to make very many suggestions about how unemployment might be reduced. In fact, I did not hear many such suggestions from my noble friend the Minister, who gave much attention to how to improve productivity, competitive-ness, growth and prosperity. Those are all good things but, as other noble Lords have indicated, they do not tell us very much about the unemployment problem.
The solution must be that when introducing technology we ensure that we do not introduce technology only to do more effectively that which we already do—that is, to increase productivity. That may lead to prosperity, but it does not in any way create new jobs. We also have to create different kinds of jobs. In this debate there has not been as much emphasis on innovation as I had hoped. I am referring to fundamental and original research. The European Community White Paper makes constructive suggestions about the areas in which new jobs can be established. I refer to the notion of transport and information highways, expansion in the leisure industry, developing biotechnology and the

319
application of green policies. All those things may genuinely create new jobs rather than simply increase productivity, but I should have liked more emphasis on fundamental research. I should like to see both Opposition and Government policy statements giving more emphasis to the role that fundamental research and the research councils ultimately have in creating jobs.
We should ask ourselves why Europe will be effective in the next century. It is not because we shall be hugely competitive in terms of jobs. We have already heard that there will be cheap labour in other parts of the world and we are certainly not seeking to compete with the Chinese labour situation now or in the future. Europe's long-term assets do not include high labour competitiveness, but high literacy and the great tradition which gave us the scientific revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the computer revolution (along with friends in the United States) and now our contribution to the information revolution. Other areas are also playing a part in that revolution such as the Pacific Rim countries, but much innovation in terms of ideas is still coming from Europe. We have to ensure that that continues if Europe is to have any kind of success.
I realise that it would be tactful for me to stop in a moment and I shall do so, but first I should like to read from the memorandum by the Policy Studies Institute which is found on page 110 of the evidence to our report. Talking about long-term changes, the institute stated:
"The second change is a shift in the balance of the economy towards high intellectual content manufacturing, commerce and what can be termed intellectual endeavour. These are activities in which the leading member states have a competitive advantage, although they may still be weak relative to competitors in the US.
The structural changes are analogous to those that took place in the late 18th and 19th century. At that time there was a shift away from economies based on agriculture and towards economies based on manufacturing industry. In much of Europe these changes have continued into the 20th century. We are now experiencing changes that are of similar magnitude".
We are undergoing a revolution that is akin to the industrial and agricultural revolutions. It is up to us to ensure that we lead in the field of intellectual endeavour.
If I had more time I would embark on one more theme and consider the issue of unemployment. We should perhaps be questioning—some have already done this—how desirable it is for us all to be working a full working week. How long is the ideal working week? Is it 48, 30 or 24 hours? Is it always fun? On the other hand, one has a work ethic and achieves a certain respectability in the world from undertaking work. But what about part-time work? What about voluntary work?
If I had the opportunity to make another speech in this debate, it would be to ask the question; what are we going to do in a world in which full employment is no longer possible? The figures to which I drew your Lordships' attention at the beginning of my speech indicate that full employment is no longer possible. It is no use just banging on about competitiveness. That does not address the issue of unemployment. One way of addressing the issue of unemployment is to analyse it in a more thoughtful way than we have done and to ask; what are we going to do in a world in which it is simply
320
not possible for all people to be fully employed in the traditional manner? That is a question that we shall have to think about further.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roll, in his impressive and stimulating speech used a phrase which he corrected. In a way, I am sorry that he corrected it because the phrase that he used first was to ask how we can come out of the "recovery". I think that how we come out of recovery is almost more important than how we come out of recession, which is how the noble Lord corrected himself.
I believe that the recurrent severity of the various trade cycles in recent times has been largely responsible for the problems that we confront today. Of course, we can never get away from trade cycles. Even the Roman farmers complained about trade cycles and there were major trade crises in both Elizabethan and Victorian times. However, we happen to have suffered from them very severely recently. I was glad to note that in his Mansion House speech the Chancellor referred specifically to that and said that it would be the aim of government policy to try to avoid such recurrent crises —at any rate in their recent severity.
As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out, there has been a plethora of reports on this subject. If one tried to bring to the House all those reports—I was tempted —one would not be able to carry them. I have brought only three with me and it was pretty hard work. It has taken me a lot of time to try to distil from those reports, which deal with various aspects of the crucial problem of growth, competition and employment, something simple, straightforward and concise to be able to say on this occasion. Other noble Lords have tried to make their own distillations and I shall give your Lordships mine.
I should like to start with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has just made. He said—I am sure that we all accept this—that the technological revolution through which we are now going is historic in nature. The role of the computer in changing our industrial and economic life is equivalent to the impact: of the steam engine, the internal combustion engine and the electric motor.
Despite what people may think about the nationalised industries, the Coal Board was fairly far-seeing and we were among the first to introduce computers for payroll purposes. In those days, they were massive machines and many people were needed to handle them. They were located in special rooms in which the temperature had to be regulated. Progressively, computers have been used for more and more purposes, but the computer has now moved right to the heart of our industrial processes. The most staggering and impressive news that I read recently was the announcement of Boeing's new commercial aircraft, the 777, which is said to be the first to be designed entirely on a computer. That is quite a revolution. We are living through extraordinary times. That is one distillation of the background against which we have to tackle the problems. There is no way of stopping the technological advance.

321
However, that must be seen also in the context of the other major development, which is the opening up of the markets. We have seen the moves to create the internal single market which the country has fully supported. I believe that that is the one aspect of the Community's development on which there is common accord. We have also seen the success of the Uruguay Round and the opening up of world markets, the instantaneous ways in which vast sums of money can be moved around the world, and the much more effective and freer way in which goods and people can move around the world. That is the second big development—revolution almost—with which we have to grapple.
Let us consider what has happened to Western Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, dealt with this. Western Europe enjoyed its greatest postwar period in the 1960s. One country after another had its economic miracle. Had that period lasted a couple of years longer I think that even Britain would have had an economic miracle. One saw economic miracles in Germany, Italy and so on. Europe seemed to know no limits to the extent of its growth. Suddenly all of that was shattered by the oil shocks of the 1970s. Those oil shocks reversed whole processes. They irremediably changed Bretton Woods. Following the 1974 crisis, all currencies began to float. It started inflationary movements and recession and unemployment began to go up. All of the ills that we are now suffering started at that time. Unfortunately, Western Europe has not really recovered from those shocks. We faltered then and to some degree we are still faltering.
Many noble Lords have spoken about the different ways in which our main competitors, namely the United States and Japan, have developed. The conundrum posed by the report that we are now considering, in particular by the Motion put down by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, is: as the most dramatic social impact of that combination of circumstances has been the very high level of unemployment, whether cyclical or structural, will the further development of technology make the position worse or not? Inevitably we are involved in this great surge of technological development. What will be the effect on the already high level of unemployment?
I shall try to take a reasonably optimistic view. I believe that I stand with the OECD report on this matter. On page 31 of that report it is said that,
"historically the income-generating effects of new technologies have proved more powerful than the labour-displacing effects. Technological progress has been accompanied not only by higher output and productivity but also by higher overall employment".
However, the report goes on to say that,
"the transition from old to new technologies is a demanding process".
The question to which we are inevitably led is how to cope most effectively with that process, bearing in mind that on the one hand we have to achieve a cutting edge on the technology and maintain our competitiveness and, on the other hand, as we are all agreed in this House, the social problem of high unemployment has to be dealt with. I have tried to view that in the context of the policies that the Government are at present pursuing and some of the policies that I would like to see them
322
pursue. I am at one with my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf that this is a problem that each country has to solve for itself but with the Commission comparing experiences and stimulating wherever it can. However, the real effort has to come from the countries themselves.
Let us consider the Government's policies that are relevant to this issue. First, the Government have set themselves the task of containing inflation. I am sure that we all subscribe to that. I am very pleased to see that the Bank of England is playing a progressively more independent role. I believe that the Chancellor was right when he claimed as one of the successes of his period of office that he had opened up the dialogue with the Bank and that we could see for ourselves what the Governor and the Chancellor said at their meetings. I hope that that process will be extended. There is much to be said for having an independent body to care for the rate of inflation as that is so crucial. Therefore, I agree with that part of the Government's policies.
I turn to the second aspect of their policies, the containment of public spending. Of course, public spending must not get out of control. When I come to the question of investment I will submit that there is a part of public spending that is not being sufficiently attended to at the moment.
I hope I am being fair in saying that the third plank —no doubt the noble Lord will correct me later if I am wrong—is deregulation. The Government have set their minds on removing as many of the impediments to trade and industry as possible. But I believe that they have formed the view that if they contain inflation, restrict public spending and deregulate, and therefore create an open market, the rest can look after itself. I have doubts about that. I believe that policy has to be taken further than that.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell, Lord Monkswell and Lord Renfrew, have raised the question of investment, which I believe to be absolutely crucial. At the beginning of this debate the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out that there had been substantial increases in investment in recent years in the British economy, particularly in industry. No doubt that is true. But the fact is that in absolute terms we lag behind, as pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote.
In addition to the three planks of government policy, which I support, I should like to have a fourth plank: a positive attitude to investment. I believe that that is the only way in which we can effectively prepare ourselves for the continuing surge forward of technological development, the continuing openness of the markets and therefore the continuing need, if we wish to have any impact on unemployment, to have a lead in an increasing number of sectors. The way to do that is to undertake carefully considered investment, which itself has to be divided into four parts.
First, there is the built infrastructure. I am dismayed at the lack of investment that has been put into the national assets of this country, particularly the transport assets. I have repeatedly asked Questions about London Underground, which is a crucial element to enable

323
people who work in the city to move in and out of London. Yet investment has fallen behind what the Government even three years ago agreed was necessary. In my opinion, that is not a sensible policy. However vital may be the need for overall control of public expenditure, one should not cut out the essential maintenance of vital assets. I believe that that matter needs to be reviewed.
As far as industrial investment in the private sector is concerned, here too a lot can be done to stimulate more investment. For a long time I have felt that the tax system in relation to investment was discriminatory. Why should one get only 25 per cent. of formative investment? Why should one not get 100 per cent.? Why should that not be regarded as a perfectly legitimate, and indeed very desirable, commercial expenditure? It seems to me quite wrong that the running costs of a business—for example, the costs of office equipment—should rate 100 per cent. against tax and yet the vital investment which makes those running costs a necessity is not sufficiently encouraged. That needs to be looked at very seriously.
We must consider the position of small firms. They can have a dramatic effect on the employment and future of a country if they can be provided with the resources that they need and are not damaged, for example, by the whole question of late payments. There was a Question about that today and I asked a Question about it last week. Late payments are an extremely costly burden on small businesses. It may be argued that legislation may not be the answer, and there are strong arguments against it. But I am chairman of a medium-sized company and I know that I should tell my people to pay their bills more promptly to avoid running the risk of having to pay interest. I should expect the same in return. That would have a positive impact. We must look at those matters.
Research and development is the third area. The point has been made well by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, about basic research, but I should like to refer to industrial research. The Government produce extremely interesting R&D scoreboards. The latest was issued on 17th June. That compared the proportion of investment of major companies in this country with a number of other leading countries as between expenditure on research and on dividends. I know that that is a controversial issue which the Government have raised and it has attracted a certain amount of dispute among their own supporters. Nevertheless, the figures are very striking.
The Government's figures show that in the United Kingdom—the 20 largest firms which invest in R&D in the UK—the proportion of sales put into research is 2.29 per cent. compared with dividends of 3.09 per cent. That relationship exists in no other country. For example, in France the R&D figure is 4.8 per cent. and the dividend figure—that is, the percentage paid out in dividends as a proportion of sales—is 0.66 per cent. In Germany the figure for R&D is 6.8 per cent. and for dividends the figure is 0.74 per cent. It seems that we are the only country in the major league which not only puts so little
324
into R&D but which also pays out proportionately so much more in dividends. That means that those funds are not available for investment.
Finally, there is the question of investment in training, about which much has been said and, indeed, much is contained in the Government's recently published report. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf said about the need for employability, especially to take account of the rapidly changing technological background against which we have to work.
I have tried to distil from that substantial amount of very important literature on the subject which has emerged since the end of last year what my thoughts are. I believe that the technological age in which we live cannot be changed in any way. We must accept it. The only answer to it is to accept: the challenge and try to get as many leading edges as we can. We are in a much more global and competitive situation. The way to deal with that is to supplement present government policies with a much firmer policy on investment.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Caldecote and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for allowing us to debate this very important issue. It seems that to many noble Lords it is not quite such an important or exciting issue as the matter that we discussed on Monday. But, in my view, it is a far more important subject to the benefit of every person in the country.
I am one of those who believe that the only possible answer to creating more employment is growth, further economic activity and the creation of wealth. I agree with many noble Lords who have said that growth in itself may not produce further employment, but employment will certainly not be produced without more growth. Therefore, that is the key priority if we are to solve many of the problems which have been outlined so clearly by noble Lords this afternoon.
I am of the view that companies employ people when they will make a profit from them. We are quite clearly in a situation where the market value of less skilled people is less than the minimum wages that we feel it appropriate to pay them. Therefore, we must create more wealth in order to pay them. The people who create wealth are entrepreneurs. They are prepared to take risks and have the enthusiasm necessary to create new businesses. We need to support that group of people.
As many noble Lords have said, it is very easy to propose short-term palliatives to try to solve the problem. But at the end of the day, business will be created only when people work hard to do that and when people decide that they wish to create wealth. You will not become a rich man if you do not want to become a rich man. The nation will not become a rich nation, employ a lot of people and create a standard of living, which noble Lords on all sides of the House have said we must achieve, unless that is what it wants to do. It is important that we should appreciate how the nation as a

325
whole must decide whether it wishes to solve our unemployment problems and create the economic activity necessary to do that.
Long-term growth is not possible without continuous technological progress. Every incidence of growth in economies has always, at some stage, been started by new technologies that have made it possible. But there is nearly always a time lag between the development of a technology and the wealth creation which gets through to the mass of the population. That time lag can be as long as tens of years. Therefore, we must appreciate that we must do nothing to impede the progress of a new technology in one decade which will prevent it becoming a major wealth creator to benefit all the population in the years ahead.
Any activity by governments, groups or individuals which works against the development and growth of new technology could prevent the creation of thousands of jobs, not in the short term but in the many years ahead. Because of that time lag we do not always appreciate that many new technologies will need massive changes in the structures of society, the economy and attitudes before they will bring great benefits to the general population.
Many economists talk about the "QWERTY" principle where we are tied by our traditional ways of doing things that do not allow us to embrace the wider aspects of new technology which allow it to flourish. One can see what technology has done. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned it. Technology has brought enormous benefit to the aircraft industry. We are now able to make aircraft which we never dreamt would be possible. We have technology to enable us to have extremely efficient airports. They can create enormous wealth by helping people to move around the world. But what will be the benefit of such technology if nobody wishes to live next door to an airport or if every time we wish to utilise that benefit and wealth-creating opportunity, the vast majority of people wish to stop it happening?
I read in the newspaper today that the inquiry has begun into the new road around Birmingham. That road is absolutely essential if there is to be continuous employment within that very important industrial area. Certain bodies have begun to protest and said that they will do everything to prevent the development of that new infrastructure. Society must come to terms with what it wants. Does it want a no-growth, no-employment and difficult society in which people cannot get jobs and all the problems that go with that, or does it want a society where there is wealth, opportunities and growth? If it wants the latter, it must put up with what that means; namely, the growth in technologies and infrastructure which go with it.
The idea held by some people that world growth will be held back by the anti-growth policy of many in Europe is a nonsense. One need only look at what will happen in the undeveloped countries, which will grow like mad in the next few years. The latest edition of the Economist refers to the growth in energy consumption in developing countries between the years 2000 and 2010, which will be greater than today's consumption in
326
Western Europe. That is an increase in energy use, so let us just imagine what that means in terms of the economic growth that will accompany it. It also says that by the year 2020 world energy demand will be double today's levels and that energy use will be 60 per cent. in what we see as the developing world and only 30 per cent. in OECD countries. That is clearly where all the economic activity will take place. That will happen whatever we try to do to hold back growth in this country.
It is important to remember in the context of the debate that factors which prevent growth, and the employment that goes with it, are things which we do rather than those which we do not do. How many times do we debate in this House issues which will ultimately prevent someone's job, someone's new business or someone's opportunity from happening. It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure all the time that we do not put in action measures which will prevent growth and employment.
I should like to give your Lordships some thoughts on how we might improve the situation. We need 100 per cent. support for entrepreneurs. Wealth creation and growth productivity must be at the top of everyone's agenda. New technology takes time and we must not do things to prevent it half-way through its development. As many noble Lords have said, it is most important to note that new technology needs special skills. Short, specialist retraining courses are a must. I welcome the moves, about which many noble Lords will be aware, at John Moore's University in Liverpool which is now specialising in short, video, highly specialised courses which can retrain people quickly and effectively into new ideas. I believe that the demands for unskilled people will be in construction, environmental improvements, leisure and tourism. It is most important that we should give those industries the opportunity to move forward.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew mentioned the whole aspect of research and the new technologies which are coming forward. That is a matter which we have studied in the North West just recently to see how we can better exploit the research and technology which is being developed in the universities. So far as we are concerned, every university has its own technology exploitation unit which, as all agree, have not been terribly effective. Such units have not been able to attract the skills that are needed to really drive the technology forward and the people who really understand the market place; neither have they been able to give confidence to the research worker that they will gain the commercial returns on their development which they feel that they justify.
I believe the better approach would be for us to develop a single North West exploitation unit. It could be well funded and take in research from all the universities within the area. Moreover, it could advise on the exploitation, the commercialisation and the licensing and also be able to put back the resources into the universities over a period of years. I am very pleased to say that, so far, five of the universities in the North West have supported and given great encouragement to that idea to the extent that I now feel that we are in the

327
process of putting together a business plan. It is to be hoped that government and various other sources will support such a plan; indeed, I already know many venture capital organisations do support it.
The latter is a positive way forward which could apply to many areas of the country. If it works—and I hope that the North West will be able to make it work —it could well become an example of what can be done for other areas of the country. However, as the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, shows, there is clearly a gap between the research that is taking place in the universities and the time-lag that exists to get that technology into an active working place and exploited to produce wealth and jobs for the country. The North West is trying to solve the problem by centralising it and bringing in greater abilities to deal with it.
I feel strongly that the Government, especially through their initiative with the DTI, have seen the way ahead and the importance of making wealth creation and the development of jobs the top priority of every sector of society. From that initiative one hopes that that department will be able to persuade all the other parts of government to take the same view. I feel confident that, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, the period of enormous technological change through which we are passing will not just bring short-term wealth but will lay the foundation for a society which can create tremendous opportunities during the next century.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, listening to the debate, a statement by Karl Marx when he was very young comes to my mind:
"Philosophers have only interpreted the world … the task, however, is to change it".
We have heard an excellent set of analyses. We all understand the problems. They have been most adequately described. Therefore, intervening rather late in the debate, I shall not repeat too much analysis. I shall try to speak more about solutions.
What is clear from the many documents on the subject—I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that I have brought them all with me—is that they are somewhat short of solutions. I shall try to outline what I consider to be the direction in which such solutions may lie. I shall first point out the aspects upon which we are all agreed.
We agree that globalisation of financial markets and an international division of labour have taken place. Therefore, the sort of policies upon which we used to rely —what I used to call Keynesianism in one country —are dead. You cannot be Keynesian in one country any more; or if you can it will not fully solve the problem. I shall deal later with just how far one can go with such policies.
However, one may be able to do something at the European Community level with Keynesian policies. Part of the White Paper issued by the European Commission, especially the policies on trans-European networks and infrastructural investment, is basically what we were trying to do in the 1940s projected at a European level. While in principle I like that, I do not believe that it has very much chance of success.
328
Keynesian policies need a strong state; in other words, one which commands consensus. Like it or not—I must say this because my noble friend Lord Brace will remind me of it if I do not—the European Community does not command that sort of consensus and does not have the sort of central machinery to take; up a problem of infrastructural investment and implement it. Whether we like it or not is neither here nor there: it will not happen. We have already seen that the plans to borrow several billions of ecus from one or another investment bank have been brought to nought because the various members of ECOFIN have told the president of the Commission where to get off.
Keynesian policies at a European level, even if they were feasible, will therefore not happen. We must face seriously the sort of solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf; in other words, we must think globally but act locally. We must have local and national solutions to the unemployment problem.
It has been said that unemployment is structural, cyclical and so on. Obviously, Keynesian policies might reduce cyclical unemployment. But what is going on at present? Well, we are coming out of recession and, as we got into the recession earlier than other European economies, we are coming out of it earlier. There is no great miracle involved. In the recovery, weak as it is, there is some decline in unemployment; bur. there will be limits to that decline. As we know, in the past 15 years, come boom or bust and with or without trade union regulation or whatever, unemployment has stayed at 1 million or 1.5 million higher than what it was in the bad old 1970s.
The reasons are obviously structural and not cyclical. Reducing cyclical unemployment will get you a little way, but it will not get you far. So what will we do? The excellent report that the committee of the noble; Lord, Lord Hunt, has prepared contains on page 72 an analysis of what is referred to as "jobless growth". I admit with some pride that I was associated with the UN human development report last year which took as the theme of its front page the growth of joblessness. The report referred to the experience of different countries as regards growth in income and growth in employment. It showed the great contrast that exists as regards employment and growth in European countries, Japan and the USA. Many noble Lords have referred to that.
I shall come to non-wage costs in a moment. While many things have been said, it has not been made clear that the rate of investment as a proportion of GNP in Japan is very different from that of any European country or even of America. Roughly 30 per cent. of GNP is invested by the Japanese. That is why, although growth does not necessarily create jobs—in fact, a lot of growth destroys jobs—if a sufficiently high rate of growth is created, a country may achieve productivity growth as well as employment growth.
I do not believe it is realistic to say that an economy which is used to investing around 15 to 18 per cent. of its GDP—that is our experience—will start to invest 30 per cent. of its GDP in a hurry. However, we must really think about the fact—this, again, is not a partisan point —that historically the UK economy has been an

329
over-consuming economy. Over the past 40 years our budget deficits and our trade deficits reveal that we have over-consumed by up to 4 to 5 per cent. of our income.
We can look at the matter another way. If we consider private consumption and government consumption and remove those two elements, we shall be surprised to see that there is not even as much as 10 per cent. of GNP left. I have no time to go into detail. I merely say that by and large we over-consume. Until we re-think our consumption habits—in the Keynesian days over-consumption was encouraged because Keynesian policy decreed that stable consumption created jobs—things will not change. But the world is different now. World economies now demand investment. It is believed by world economists that there is no shortage of demand for products as countries can sell their products abroad. However, one must be able to sell, and that requires technological change, growth, productivity, innovation and so on.
We must completely re-think our national economic policies. The problem of over-consumption will not go away. I do not believe in this business of non-wage costs. I do not say that because the average hides a lot of dispersion around the mean—most averages do so —but because what is counted as non-wage costs depends upon what parts of public expenditure are financed in an overall framework. For example, chapter nine of the Commission's White Paper explains that in some countries health care may be financed by what we call national insurance contributions whereas in other countries it may be financed by income tax or by a sales tax. That will lead to very different non-wage costs in member states, although the overall tax burden may be the same. Therefore, I do not think one should pay too much attention to deviations in non-wage costs. Although those deviations may be large, as regards overall tax burdens the position of the UK is similar to that of Germany. There is not much in it. It is sad that non-wage costs have become a big issue because it is really a matter of how a country finances its public expenditure. In my opinion such costs do not shed much light on the subject.
The real question is: what is to be done about all this? I believe it is important to make a distinction between what I call the tradeable sector and the non-tradeable sector. In the tradeable sector, be it manufacturing or services, we must insist on the highest rate of productivity growth and on the highest reduction in unit labour costs. I do not mean low wages. The highest reduction in unit labour costs is where competitiveness and wealth creation lie. Unfortunately, wealth creation is not the same as job creation. We must realise that we shall always need a dynamic manufacturing and tradeable services sector which will grow rapidly and which will generate income. It will have to grow rapidly because that is the nature of the game. If we do not have productivity growth, we will have unemployment because basically we will not be able to sell abroad.
As noble Lords know, the manufacturing sector as a contributor of employment has been shrinking and more people have been entering the service industries. But even in the financial services sector, a company has to
330
be highly productive and highly efficient to be able to compete in other markets. The dilemma of public policy will, I think, be as follows. One will have a rapidly growing, very dynamic sector of tradeable goods which will not generate employment. Employment will be generated elsewhere in the economy in the non-tradeable sector. The question is: how does one make the people who make all the money in the tradeable sector partly transfer their wages to finance the non-tradeable sector? Of course, if the non-tradeable sector were commercial and all its services were available, the price of the non-tradeable goods would go up and people would have to pay more for child care, transport, or dustbin collection, for example. However, that is not the way it happens. We need a combination of market and non-market policies. We have to think through the whole question of the provision of jobs in the non-tradeable sector at local authority and central authority level as well as in the private sector.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the dilemma of having either high wages for those in employment or the combination of a market wage and non-wage basic income support. We must either go for non-wage basic income support plus a market wage so that the combination gives everyone a living income —not a living wage—or we will have to subsidise jobs in the non-tradeable sector. There is no third solution. One either pays people a wage which is a living wage or one gives them a living income.
Some schemes for job creation were presented in evidence to the committee. A number were similar to workfare or suggested giving unemployed people vouchers to enable them to pay employers to employ them. That, in a sense, subsidises job creation. I do not want to favour one policy above another but I would point out that a variety of policies are available which ultimately involve some part of the public revenue being used as a subsidy to create jobs. That will perhaps elicit jobs from the private sector and the people who gain the jobs, having had job experience, will find other jobs later on. I am afraid that all this will cost money. But we will spend money in any case either through paying unemployment benefit or through creating jobs for the unemployed so that they no longer receive unemployment benefit.
What is more important, I believe, than the amount of taxation levied is a change in the logic of taxation. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to that. What I mean is that along with the Keynesian policy of encouraging consumption we have also adopted a policy which taxes employment and taxes profits. It does not tax consumption, including the consumption of energy. Therefore we are taxing the wrong things. We are not taxing those items with which we are profligate and which we ought to save; we are taxing the things we desperately need more of. We need to make more use of labour and capital, but we are taxing capital and labour while not taxing consumption and the use of energy. I believe that that would be perfectly logical, although it would take me a long time to explain, and I always get into trouble when I talk about taxation. I believe that we

331
need a shift in the way in which we think about employment—away from taxes on labour and on profits to taxes on consumption and energy.
I recognise that I have over-run my time, but I should like to make this point. I believe there is a great deal of scope for job sharing. When people speak of job sharing they do not mean lower income. That is very important. People would love to work for 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. fewer hours, but they do not want 20 per cent. less income. Therefore, any scheme for job creation backed by job sharing has to go around the same loop I described earlier. Somebody will have to be paid more money for doing less work, and if they are more productive that may finance jobs elsewhere. Otherwise, it is not commercially feasible.
Lastly, in the private tradeable sector we have to go ruthlessly in pursuit of productive growth and profitability. In the non-tradeable sector we have to find imaginative ways of creating jobs. That is where jobs will be created, not in the other sector. We have to combine both. One or the other by itself will not be enough.
7.11p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, this has been a great debate for the economists. I should like to speak from a different viewpoint.
I took the words "growth, competitiveness and employment" and, to borrow the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I distilled them in my own way, which is from a business background. Of all the various reports that have been published, with my background perhaps it is not surprising that the one which appeared most significant to me was the report which appeared as Appendix 5 of the Select Committee report. That is the European Round Table of Industrialists' message to the Commission in Brussels called Beating the Crisis.
I like the report not least because it starts with a very simple message. It states that Europe is a high cost, low growth economy. It is not adapting fast enough. It is losing competitive advantage, and as a result too many people are out of work. The report moves on and calls for full settlement of the Uruguay trade talks. It says that special interest groups can no longer hold the global economy to ransom and calls for a substantial increase in investment. In fact, it calls for the fourth plank mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
The ERT states that competitiveness means that Europe must reduce costs, cut regulations and raise quality. Government must set the framework. Stable conditions are required and less regulation, because uncertainty is the enemy of investment. There must be less waste and less distortion as a result of state aid and monopolies. Industry must achieve the task of every company: raise quality, cut costs and break into new markets. The report states that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have the greatest potential for job creation.
I turned to the Commission's White Paper, where I found the statement that it is necessary to underpin the dynamism of SMEs. I therefore started to look rather carefully at small and medium enterprises. The Commission says that companies with fewer than 500
332
employees account for 70 per cent. of Community employment and also 70 per cent. of Community turnover. Amazingly, companies with fewer than 10 employees still account for 29 per cent. of Community employment.
The Commission report adds that SMEs have a high rate of failure and that it appears to be increasing. The Commission goes on to recommend new financial facilities, co-operation between firms (presumably between SMEs) and improvements in management quality.
I then moved on to the recently released Bangemann Report. Here I found that:
"The 12 million SMEs are rightly regarded as the backbone of the European economy. They do, however, need to manage both information and managerial resources better".
The report does not explain how that is to be achieved. It is interesting that in opening the debate my noble friend Lord Caldecote flagged SMEs as a significant means of achieving job creation.
The DTI paper, Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win, offers help to SMEs under the heading of "Finance for Business". It states that the DTI offers measures to encourage the supply of capital. It talks about the small firms loan guarantee scheme, reduced audit and accounting requirements for SMEs and codes of banking practice. It states that the Government will provide stable macro-economic environmental conditions in which markets can work more efficiently. As others have said, elsewhere there is much on education and training but no specific comment on SMEs and their management practices.
I then thought what might be done in order to increase job creation through SMEs. They have a problem. It is a lack of management resources. They do not become involved in association-type activities and the lecture circuit in the same way as larger companies with more resources are able to. Therefore, they are not involved in the process of adding value. If the UK is to grow through its SMEs, I suggest there ate three approaches by which we can help them to add value. I am talking here about existing technology which they do not possess, not about new technology resulting from R&D.
First, there is the top-down approach. I believe that we should focus much more on the chairmen and chief executives of SMEs. Our stage one message to them should be that their company can add value through technology. Technology is now profit centre driven, and where there is a financial director in their profit centre there should be an information technology director. Where there is a financial controller in their profit centre, they should have an information technology manager. I read recently of the experience in the USA and Canada. It is interesting that they found that if they go to a business leader and say, "Your competitors are really into electronic data interchange", a glazed look comes over the man's eyes and he passes the matter to his IT staff as fast as he can. If they say to him, "Your competitors are really into electronic commerce", he becomes excited, stays interested and becomes involved. Therefore, how we approach the matter is important.

333
That is merely stage one of the top-down approach. Many companies have already reached that stage, particularly here in London and the City where most companies are well and truly organised in terms of technology. However, many of those companies have not yet caught up with the fact that there is a second stage. Technology changes the boundaries of where one competes and where one shares services. There is further added value to be gained in the electronic market by sharing services with those with whom one trades and, surprisingly, in many cases with those with whom one competes. Out-sourcing and the use of bureaux are ways in which costs can be cut by sharing services. In general, SMEs do not understand that. In some areas they have not even discovered yet that they are players within the market place, let alone that they can enter the market and, by using technological means, improve it.
If the first approach is top down, the second is obviously bottom up. Every SME has a fax. Most have mobile phones. Many are starting to use Internet for electronic mail. Why? They are easy to use. They are sexy. There is an element of one-upmanship. That has happened despite management, not because of it. Because of early critical mass, they are of great use. The task for those who seek to try to get UK small and medium enterprises to grow is to find more products with such characteristics. However, the problem for them is that computer communications is structured, regulated and ponderous. In his report, Bangemann calls for the making of standards to be speeded up. If he is successful, perhaps more SMEs will use IT in the manner in which they ought.
Finally, the third method of moving SMEs is the industrial way. As regards the superstores, and in certain areas of the banking world, suppliers cannot trade with them unless using their electronic system. That concentrates the hearts and minds and brings people into the modern technical age. Incidentally, all those who do that are substantially better off as a result.
So there are three ways to achieve growth in the UK in that 70 per cent. of the economy sector called the SMEs: to brainwash those in charge; to give those at the sharp end new tools that they can use; and to get industry and commerce to drive the markets. Perhaps organisations such as that to which my noble friend Lady Wade has referred may be the place in which we should seek to move those methods forward.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Laing of Dunphail: My Lords, unemployment at an unacceptably high level is facing the whole of Europe, and I suspect, as my noble friend Lord Renfrew said, that in the short term it will prove impossible to bring it down to a level with which we could feel reasonably comfortable. But there are practical measures which can and should be taken to improve the situation. I shall suggest two in a few moments.
The background to any measures must be to ensure that inflation is kept within government guidelines, that interest rates are kept as low as possible consistent with that objective and that productivity and innovation are accepted as the key to fuller employment. Although our
334
productivity has been improving, we have so much ground to make up that wise investment in R&D must double. That inevitably will mean in the short run that dividends will be affected. We have been living beyond our means. In order to double our R&D, tax incentives —further tax incentives —may be necessary.
It is important, too, that the Government, management and unions redouble their efforts to ensure that people understand that they can price themselves into jobs or out of jobs—that we have no divine right to our standard of living. So if we are to have more employment we must strive to become the low-cost producer of the products the world wants.
Let me now put forward two ideas, one of which would ameliorate the problem—I believe that it is unacceptable at present—and the other create more jobs. There is a trade-off between unemployment and early retirement. As I said in your Lordships' House on 25th November last year, I believe that an imaginative special offer early retirement scheme should be devised. The aim would be to retire, say, ½ million unskilled people aged about 60 with long service and in occupational pension schemes at the pension level they would have received at 65. The Government would play their full part provided that a young person were taken on from the unemployment pool.
Can it be sensible to keep people in work at 60 or over who would like to retire, while denying work to youngsters who want to work? To those who suggest that that remedy is too expensive I reply that nothing is more expensive and degrading than unemployed youth. Most crime involves young unemployed people, not those in their 60s. If unemployment is seen as our most serious problem, crime comes a close second.
If we are serious about reducing unemployment, consideration should be given to making private employment tax deductible for clearly defined groups, starting perhaps with home help to enable mothers to go out to work. That net could be widened with advantage, especially in rural areas.
In a nutshell, more jobs will not be created if we are not competitive. That means that our unit labour costs must be competitive with the best in the world. That will not be achieved by a shorter working week, but could be achieved by a shorter working life, coupled with increased R&D expenditure, leading to an increased share of world trade, in particular in the countries of the Pacific Rim.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, like other members of Sub-committee A, I join in thanking the clerk and the special adviser who brilliantly organised and summarised the flood of material which came our way. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, that it was a great advantage in dealing with such a complex and sensitive subject to have a former secretary to the Cabinet presiding over us with such Olympian calm and fairness.
As a new member of the sub-committee, I found listening to the expert evidence a sobering experience. I belong to that immediate post-war generation of politicians who were brought into politics partly by

335
revulsion at the mass unemployment of the 'thirties and who came to take too much for granted, I am afraid, the levels of full employment in the 'fifties. The noble Lord, Lord Roll, spoke of those times. As a non-economist, I was inclined to feel complacently that Beveridge and Keynes had provided us with the keys to a lasting high level of jobs and welfare.
I emerged from the proceedings of Sub-committee A with the clear conclusion that today any politician who makes a glib slogan of the restoration of full employment, or who is unwise enough to attach his name to numerical targets of job provision, is heading straight for the disillusion of disappointed expectations.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the basic conclusion of the report which stated:
"Unemployment is the most important social problem facing us at the present time".
The problem of structural unemployment in the Community is more serious than anything that the White Paper suggested.
Noble Lords who have spoken have sought to suggest realistically what we can do against that rather bleak background at both the European Union and national level. If there are no short cuts, what is the longer route to a more civilised situation? The dilemma was put starkly by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in his reference to the figures for the relationship between the rate of growth and the provision of extra employment. I thought that the Government's reply to our report and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was a little thin with regard to the challenge of unemployment. The noble Lord concentrated, perhaps wisely, on the Government's case on competitiveness. That is of crucial importance but it is not the answer to the unemployment problem. I do not wish to become engaged in the endless battle of statistics. However, although we all welcome the current reduction of the overall figures of unemployment by about 300,000, the background still remains very sombre indeed.
The most striking figures from the Commission's White Paper were for the period 1970–1992, a period which covers successive governments of both parties in this country. They indicated that whereas during that period output in the United Kingdom had grown by 51 per cent., the number of jobs had grown by only 3 per cent. The dilemma is set out very fairly and clearly in the sub-committee's report. Paragraph 65 on page 22 states:
"The evidence suggests that Member States in the Community face a choice between more job creation (especially in the form of low-paid jobs), less social protection and a lower level of productivity, on the one hand, and less job creation, more social protection and a higher level of productivity, on the other hand. Finding the right balance will not be easy".
Is there some right balance, a middle way between these stark choices? Although there are undoubtedly lessons to be learnt from Japan and the United States, experience shows that national cultural habits do not transplant easily. The USA has undoubtedly a better record than Europe in job creation, but the working poor concept in the United States is not an attractive one to the European social ethos.
On the other hand, I am bound to say—and here I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, implied and
336
other noble Lords said—I find it equally distasteful, perhaps even more distasteful, that present European practices appear to impose, particularly upon young people, the prospect of a dependency culture of living permanently on the dole, social benefits and perhaps spinning off into drugs and youthful crime.
I conclude from that idea that we must apply ourselves seriously to looking, for example, at changing patterns for job-related social security benefits. That has a constructive contribution to make, though no doubt a modest one. Searching for some practical remedy that would mitigate the situation, I liked the Dutch experience that supported a 30 per cent. increase in employment, due to a shift to part-time work. Perhaps we may copy something like that.
I also much agree that there should be further exploration of the ideas of Professor Layard, which are mentioned at paragraph 96, of recruitment subsidies for taking on the young, long-term unemployed. Professor Meade has also recently been putting forward similar ideas.
On a wider, longer-term pan-European scale, the federal trust proposals that are mentioned in our report for a funded rather than a pay-as-you-go pension scheme throughout the Community would contribute: both to jobs and to higher levels of Community investment. Although it may be a rather visionary concept, it is worth looking at further.
Both the White Paper and our report agree that the main focus for effort must be at the national level, as my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf said. Despite that, there is a community role to be played, as was described clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his summary of the report. I shall not repeat what others have said about the kind of framework that the European Union must provide in terms of the exchange of ideas, the advocacy of best practice and so on. But the focus has been particularly on issues about flexibility at the European Union level.
First, as our report indicates, there is a need for a flexible approach over the convergence criteria for economic and monetary union. In accepting that, one should not forget the point that was made in our report about the importance of maintaining exchange rate stability in order to keep uncertainty about job-creating investment decision-making down to a minimum.
Secondly, much attention has been given to the need for flexibility in the labour market within the European Union. This is an issue on which the Government are inclined to concentrate, triumphantly describing their opt out from the social chapter under the Maastricht Treaty arrangements.
The Commission's White Paper is as convinced as the Government and most of us that non-wage labour costs in the Community represent a tax on jobs which should be reduced. The Commission's White Paper is as convinced as Her Majesty's Government and most of us that international competitiveness is of vital importance. The social chapter relates only to a small part of those issues.
There is, in fact, widespread agreement on the need for reforms, I would say for radical reforms in the social policies related to job provision, both in the member

337
states and at the community level. The real aim, the real question, is: what is the best way to bring about this reform? There are more civilised and less civilised ways to reduce non-wage labour costs. There are more civilised and less civilised mechanisms for bringing that about. I was rather struck by the fact that both the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who introduced the debate in an interesting speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, seemed from rather opposite poles to come to a considerable measure of agreement about the need for what is known in Community jargon as the social partners engaging in constructive dialogue with each other. For my part, I think that the European Union concept of social partners and dialogue, of trying to reach an agreed consensus, is a civilised one and it is well worth trying to apply it so far as one can.
I add the proviso that there must be included in one way or another the interests of the silent partner, the young long-term unemployed in the dialogue. There is always the danger that consensus becomes fudge rather than decision. But compromise is different from fudge and sensible compromise is better than a rather sterile confrontation or the application of the rootless and sometimes jobless logic of the unregulated market.
In any case, I say to the Government Front Bench that the best way to influence wise decisions in the European Union —to which we are treaty bound—is from the inside. If we want to make practical progress in reducing structural unemployment in a European Union facing global competition, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said, no doubt the main effort must be at the national level. But it will have to be done in a Community framework because of the globalisation of the world economy. If I were the Government, in these circumstances I would begin quietly to underplay the social chapter and concentrate on getting to the heart of the decision making on matters where the goals are largely agreed. The Maastricht social chapter, in my judgment, adds little that is not negotiable to the social provisions of the original treaty to which successive British governments have solemnly adhered. However, the tasks of reducing structural unemployment in practical ways demand the maximum social and political stability and cohesion, both at the national level and at the community level.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, are to be congratulated on introducing this timely debate. There can be nothing worse for the self-esteem of any person than the inability to get a job. For every scrounger on the dole, there are 10 times as many good citizens longing to be employed. Unemployment is the central problem of our time. But paradoxically there is no shortage of work to be done. One glance at our decaying towns, poor infrastructure, overcrowded gaols —the legacy of years of under-investment—indicates that there is a mountain of employment potential.
What then prevents the supply of labour and the need for it from coming together? What difficulties in particular affect the sophisticated labour markets of
338
Europe? Is high unemployment the inevitable outcome of technological change, an inescapable by-product of the welfare state that brings with it the moral hazard of the poverty trap? I do not believe that unemployment is unavoidable; I believe that society must look at some of the fundamental causes of unemployment and attempt to tackle those rather than the symptoms, however long the framework.
The whole structure of our present taxation and employment laws and the philosophy behind them are in practice certain to perpetuate unemployment. There is no easy answer, and there are some very big issues here. Albeit inadequately, I should like to try to highlight some of them.
If there were more time, I should like to address the whole problem of running a country with a consistently over-valued exchange rate where the deficit of £10 billion a year, if spent in this country, could create a million jobs. If there were more time, I should like to address, as have other noble Lords, the woeful problem of our education system and the debilitating way in which it introduces specialisation at far too early an age, thus greatly limiting the job prospects and employability of so many of our citizens.
In particular I should like to talk about the cost of labour and the way in which society, through government, raises the price of labour and thus reduces the demand for it. It was well said that if you increase the price of butter you get a butter mountain. If you artificially increase the price of labour you get a labour mountain. There is no commodity on earth for which, if the price is raised, demand does not fall. If you accept that simple premise—it is a premise often used by Chancellors when they deliberately raise the tax on tobacco or alcohol in order to cut consumption—then why does nobody address the problem that is created by putting taxes on labour which must inevitably reduce its consumption?
Time is money; and the natural barter between people of their time is reflected in the price of their labour under normal, undistorted conditions. In our sophisticated society we pile on additional taxes such as VAT at 17.5 per cent. and national insurance contributions of, say, another 10 per cent., and where individuals, as opposed to businesses—this point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laing,—buy labour out of taxed income we tax it at a further 25 per cent. or more. All in all, we weight the cost of labour by 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. above its normal value. Is it surprising, then, that there is a mismatch between supply and demand? Unwittingly, we create unemployment through employment taxes.
Likewise, in this country we have a very high and regressive level of income tax. It is far higher than was ever intended when income tax was first introduced. A very large component of that tax is the cost of welfare and unemployment benefits. And because tax now starts so low down the scale, it is in itself a cause of the poverty trap. It is ironic that welfare payments that are designed to mitigate the hardship of unemployment are one of the causes of it. I do not know how much the

339
work the Treasury does on the detrimental effect of employment and income tax on job development. This is an area worthy of a great deal of further study.
That brings me to the problem that the unemployed have when attempting to re-enter the labour market and get off the dole. These are real problems. If there were no welfare payments—and I am not suggesting this for a moment—an unemployed person would seek any employment and would often re-enter the labour market via some part-time route. By, let us say, moving crates for a supermarket on a Saturday morning, he would show himself to be a handy worker and would soon find himself on the permanent payroll.
There is a tendency in official statistics to regard all jobs as full-time jobs—and indeed, for its own good reasons, the trade union movement is disparaging of part-time jobs. But in the real world, not all jobs are full-time jobs. Indeed, much human activity only needs an extra pair of hands on certain days of the week and to meet peaks in demand.
In practice, there is an enormous market in part-time jobs, but society does its best to frustrate re-entry into the labour market by the unemployed through this route by erecting bureaucratic barriers that effectively lock people into the poverty trap. It is not surprising that many firms, when seeking part-timers, take on the elderly. There is nothing wrong with that. But they are, of course, cheaper to employ because they have an alternative income and no national insurance contribution is payable on their wage. In turn, they have a tax disregard on their earnings. So in practice we make it easier for those of our citizens who are effectively on basic income—the elderly—to get jobs priority over those who are on the dole. In theory, of course, an unemployed person can take on a part-time job. But the hassle of de-registering and then re-registering as unemployed drives him either to moonlight or to turn down the job in the first place. And who can blame him?
The point I particularly want to make is that those who are responsible for welfare payments should look again at the rigidities that prevent re-entry into the labour market by the part-time route. It is my belief that that would open up an enormous number of jobs to those who genuinely need them.
The Government are right at every turn to prevent the introduction of further rigidities that would inhibit the free interchange of labour. One has only to look at the unemployment records of Spain and France and compare them to those of other economies such as Hong Kong, which has absorbed 1 million refugees and has a stable society, virtually no unemployment and a standard of living that is well on the way to overtaking ours. But, of course, it has the minimum number of rigidities in its labour market. America's "easy hire, easy fire" policies give that country a huge capacity to generate jobs. Yes, I accept that some of those jobs are low paid. But at the end of the day it is better for people to have low pay than it is to have no pay. It is better to be gainfully employed than it is to be unemployed. It is better to start on the ladder of employment than to make no start at all. It is better than to be locked into an even
340
lower level of social benefits while awaiting the nirvana of high wages for all, as proposed by some Members on the opposite Bench.
That brings me to my second point; namely, that the road to unemployment is indeed paved with good intentions. Rules that are designed to give job security almost inevitably give job insecurity to those who are unlucky enough not to have a job. Perhaps I may illustrate that point. If an organisation finds difficulty in firing an inadequate worker, it would also have second thoughts about hiring a potentially inadequate worker. Every time it hires a person it takes on an obligation to pay that person when he is sick, or possibly to start paying a worker who goes on maternity leave, or to hold the job over while the person is away. It has to reckon whether those costs are absorbable. One person extra in a firm that employs 100 people is 1 per cent. of the payroll. One person extra in a firm that employs two people is 50 per cent. of the payroll. Small businesses increasingly think twice about taking on additional staff. More is the pity, because it is small firms that generate jobs. If society destroys the "easy come, easy go" interchange of labour by over-regulation, it will destroy jobs.
That brings me to the question of the minimum wage. Every academic study indicates that if the minimum wage is anything above a very minimum level, it destroys jobs rather than creates them. In practice, we have a minimum wage. It is called unemployment benefit. That is the safety net and fallback position that any society quite properly has created for the unemployed.
Perhaps I may give two perverse examples of the minimum wage. A few years ago Sweden tried to introduce the minimum wage for baby-sitters. Once one has a minimum wage, one can be subject to the full rigours of the law. A parent can be sued for under-paying a baby-sitter. The consequence was that hardly any young married couples in Sweden could afford to go out for the evening. It was a daft law with daft consequences.
Equally seriously, the whole area of outworking was destroyed. As noble Lords will know, outworking is a system whereby work is taken to people in their homes —traditionally glove making, knitting, and so on. People who are homebound can earn some money; the costs of transport and travel fall on the employer in taking work to the outworker; and the outworker, who is often homebound, does not incur such costs. If the outworker's wages were raised to the same level as those that have by law to be paid to an inworker, then there is no economic advantage to the company in having outworkers in the first place. By the natural order of things, outworkers are paid less than inworkers. If that balance is destroyed, so too are the jobs that go with it.
Outworking is often the only form of employment available to many women who are homebound, and to the disabled. A minimum wage, far from enhancing their position, would destroy their job. As a consequence, America, in particular, which has a minimum wage, has found that it has to keep it very low, to the point at which the minimum wage is more of a

341
token than a reality. The introduction of a minimum wage in this country at anything like the level suggested would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and prove another example of how the road to unemployment is paved with good intentions. I repeat that we have a minimum wage: it is unemployment benefit. I believe that that is the only safeguard with which government should concern themselves. As I mentioned earlier, it is the poverty trap that we should examine with a view to finding a way round the appalling moral hazards that the current arrangements introduce.
Finally, there is the matter of training. Training should start at school with children being given the broadest possible education. But post-education training is often advocated as a universal panacea for getting people back to work. Indeed, it will get some people back to work. But it is not possible to turn everybody into a computer programmer or a welder. The skill of many people lies in manual work and many of them are only capable—thanks to our educational system—of doing manual work in all its various forms. But there is nothing wrong with the skill of manual work. Our infrastructure is in collapse and it is largely manual work that will put it right.
Frankly, as a nation we need to spend less on holidays and more on shoring up our basic economic framework. We must resolve the problem of how to fund public works, be it through public money alone or a mixture of public and private funding. Either way, such expenditure would create hundreds of thousands of jobs—the kind of manual jobs that many people are quite capable of doing with the minimum of training. Meanwhile there is a huge under-utilisation of capacity in that sector.
In conclusion, I believe that there are a number of self-imposed barriers to employment which it is within the capabilities of our nation state to do something about, with or without the sanction of Brussels. We can make certain that the exchange rate is kept at a sensible purchasing power parity, thus keeping our economic activity competitive on the world stage; we can re-address the whole problem of the taxation of labour, recognising that the higher it is taxed, the less it will be consumed; we can look at the rigidities that prevent re-entry into the labour market by the part-time route; we can forget about the minimum wage, which would do much more harm than good; and we must not get carried away with bogus training. We should help to create the kind of jobs that can absorb the kind of labour that is currently unemployed. We must stop regarding infrastructure expenditure as a sin and, as the money has to come from somewhere, we should re-address the balance between personal expenditure and national capital expenditure, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said.
I believe that if those areas at least were tackled with imagination and political courage, over half a decade we could substantially reduce the incipient unemployment that is so damaging not only to our economy but to those who have to suffer it.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for giving us this opportunity to discuss job creation in a technological age. Much recent discussion about job creation has been based on the impact of competition. I should like to examine how we can use technology for job creation.
As many noble Lords have implied, the answer is in one word: investment—investment in equipment, in people, in new products and in infrastructure. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke about Luddites and flying shuttles. I spent all my working life in the textile industry. In that industry we learned that technology both creates and destroys jobs. Although there have been many innovative new products, much of the industry's production is still the traditional clothing and furnishings that we have known for many years. What has changed is the way in which those products are made. Technology has done away with much of the old repetitive work and thereby destroyed many jobs. The traditional products, made with new technology, in most cases are cheaper, better made and of greater variety than before. That has increased their consumption. In that way, technology has increased the skilled jobs. But the investment is high.
In a modern plant in my industry it probably now costs £100,000 to create a job. At Nissan in Sunderland, the figure has been quoted at £160,000 per job. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke of a need for the Government to encourage that investment. I shall not repeat what he said. Sadly, many of the jobs in making those products have gone abroad, not only to the low-cost labour countries but to countries such as the USA and Germany, where they have been willing to make the investment and thereby reduce unit labour costs to a far greater extent than we have. With new technology considerably reducing the labour cost element we can win those jobs back if we are willing to make the investment not only in equipment but also in people.
To achieve that goal, the investment needed in people is not just teaching craft skills to NVQ levels. That is not enough for modern industry. To use modern equipment and achieve the necessary high productivity with low unit costs needed to justify the investment, employees need to be basically better educated so that they can work unsupervised, be flexible, solve their own problems, be computer literate and have the analytical and diagnostic skills which used to be the prerogative of management.
Such training in today's technological age means a considerable investment for a company. With the shift of employment toward higher skilled, better educated people has gone the increasing unemployment of the less skilled and the less educated. The implication of that to these Benches is that people must be given every opportunity to make themselves more employable for the technological age, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, pointed out. Labour's plans were spelt out last Thursday at a conference about the university for industry, which itself would use new technology. The

343
new CBI document Thinking Ahead agrees. Chapter 1 of that document identifies a lean workforce with flexible, highly skilled employees, who are constantly updating their competencies as one of the characteristics of the successful UK company.
In a technological age investment in plant and investment in people are intimately linked because the technical expertise of the workforce depends on the availability of capital investments on which to learn and gain experience. Common sense tells us, and research has shown, that investment in equipment is much more important for growth than is investment in buildings. Each extra percentage point invested in equipment raises the GDP by 0.3 percentage points compared with a mere 0.02 percentage points for other investment. We have to make proper investments and not invest in useless speculations. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, also made that point.
Those arguments apply with equal force to the new jobs from the new products and services which technology has created. Design services, such as computer-aided design, and marketing services, such as electronic point-of-sale data, will create skilled jobs, albeit only for those with the requisite skills and education. But the returns demanded from the financial sector for that investment are high because there is little security. An attitude of lending against a company's expertise and likely prospects of success rather than against its security needs to be developed much more if we are to create jobs in a technological age.
The last area of investment is the infrastructure. Technology has speeded up industry enormously and made customers and suppliers increasingly interdependent. To ensure the success and reliability of this interdependence we need an effective transport system for moving our goods and an effective electrical highway for providing data and information services. As other noble Lords pointed out, that is especially important now that we are competing in a single market in Europe. Without that investment we shall be at a serious disadvantage in the European single market and the omission could render ineffective all the other investments that we make. Labour's plans for this were fully explained at a conference in February concerning private investment for public infrastructure.
As my noble friend Lord Desai pointed out, currently we seem to be measuring our success of job creation in terms of consumption. Surely in this technicological age we should be measuring it in terms of investment. Until we make that investment, our consumption will be of goods and services produced by others who have already made the investment. We know the equipment exists, the market exists, and the finance exists. What does not exist is a reservoir of people with the skills needed for modern industry. If industry is serious about job creation in a technicological age, then we need to put those elements together and invest in our people.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Caldecote and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, especially the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because I am a member of his sub-committee. We
344
should be thankful to the OECD report in that it makes quite clear that imports from developing countries have not had an adverse effect either upon our employment or wages. It is quite clear that the unemployment we are discussing tonight is essentially a disease of developed countries.
We heard that in Europe around 20 million people are unemployed—a figure which is expected to rise. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that if we are to be successful in the Community, we must work from the inside. We must work to convince our colleagues in Europe that it is unacceptable that the European Union can enjoy its present economic standards only with 20 million people remaining unemployed without reasonable hope of work. We haw a duty to ask whether the Union is prepared to give first priority to tackling its unemployment problems.
We know that interest rates in Europe have come down. It is interesting that the Commission's annual economic report for 1994, which was only recently published, admits that European short-term interest rates are still generally too high. There is always a danger that the Union's ideological commitment to monetary and economic union may exceed its concern about its unemployed. In 1996 an important inter-governmental conference will take place in Europe. It will raise this problem in a crucial way. There is a danger that those in Europe who wish to bring about a single currency and economic and monetary union— which are the Maastricht aims contained in the Maastricht Treaty—may seek to put those aims ahead of employment. It must be part of our policy to try to moderate the time at which the single currency and economic and monetary union will be achieved.
We have heard a lot this afternoon about jobless growth. There are two kinds of growth—growth with jobs and growth without jobs. I shall introduce yet another report which I believe I am right in saying has not been mentioned this afternoon. Taking a leaf out of the book of the noble Lord, Lord Roll, I shall flourish it. Your Lordships can see what a splendid looking book it is. It is The Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology. It is published by the Office of Science and Technology. It is significant in view of what has been said because, if we are concerned with the problem of jobless growth, it means that in what we support there must be an element of selectivity; we must go for those areas where growth will also support jobs.
The report is to be produced annually. The hope is that it will provide the United Kingdom with its first systematic assessment of market and technological opportunities and priorities. In short, it is intended to be: an instrument which will be increasingly important in determining what industrial areas should be supported and it will help in influencing the whole content of our training programme.
The White Paper made several attempts to identify sensitive areas and, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions today, one of those was the infrastructure and especially information highways. Just as the industrial revolution required transport—roads, rail and canals—so the information revolution will require an

345
information highway. Enormous amounts will need to be invested; it could be very productive of jobs. Incidentally, the United Kingdom stands particularly to gain because the international basic language for IT is English. Japan and the United States have invested enormous sums of money in this field. Europe lags behind. Its share of the worldwide FT business is around 10 per cent., whereas if we had regard to the European GNP and population we would expect our involvement to be around 25 per cent. The difference between 10 per cent. and 25 per cent. is somewhere between 1 million and 2 million jobs. That is for the basic infrastructure and does not take account of all the gadgets and other bits and pieces which people will be tempted to use because of the existence of the information highways.
There are many lessons to be learnt from this example. I shall conclude by giving just one. The needs of different industries are so diverse that if we are to have growth of the right kind we must have selectivity. Agencies such as the Forward Look must identify those areas of future industrial activity likely to produce more jobs and this identification must be followed by new kinds of selective government support and collaboration.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and to his committee on a report which I found not only interesting but educative as it produced facts, figures and ideas with which I had previously been unfamiliar. But one cannot conceal from one's self the fact that it is basically a gloomy report. It shows the statistics which relate to Europe in a very sombre light: 5 million new jobs to be created just to keep unemployment at its current level; a growth rate sunk to 2 per cent. which must go up to at least 2.5 per cent. and preferably higher if we are to raise the level of employment; a fall in investment from 25 per cent. to 19 per cent. where again a level of at least 25 per cent. is necessary; our high non-wage costs— double those of our competitors. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, that an average conceals considerable differences between individual countries, but it is nonetheless an average of a continent and I think can be fairly compared with the position in Japan and the United States.
One of the problems of this overall position of gentle decline is that it is very difficult to bring home to our citizens what is happening when the standard of living which they enjoy is still very good in relation to the rest of the world. I suspect that most of the citizens of Europe see no sort of crisis in the general standard of living apart from the number unemployed which can hit them pretty hard. But for the rest the standard is good. So how do we bring home to the millions of our fellow Union citizens that there is, if not a crisis, at least a real problem to be grappled with and that an attempt must be made to solve it?
The report deals with a number of different suggestions and steps that might be taken. In view of the late hour I shall attempt to deal with only one or two of them. One concerns the importance of SMEs—small
346
and medium-sized enterprises —which employ 70 per cent. of the workforce. One has only to look at this problem from the other side, from the side of the large enterprises and corporations, and to open one's newspaper on any day to see that they are laying off employees not in ones and twos but in hundreds. That is the only way they can maintain their competitiveness in the face of competition from Japan, the United States and elsewhere.
The hope for further employment must rest with the SMEs. It is up to us and up to the Commission to give them every encouragement. That will start with as favourable a tax regime as possible, including the issue of insurance, and also a lessening of the bureaucratic burden on them from the Commission and from their national governments. It is quite easy for a large firm with an administrative department, a legal department and an accounts department to cope fairly readily with the flow of paper that comes pouring in and with its interpretation. It is very difficult for the small firm to do the same without moving valuable managerial ability from the production line to the office.
Another point the report takes up is that of trans-European networks. Those are in energy, telecommunications and infrastructure. In themselves they are not likely to increase employment but they are likely to increase competitiveness and the efficiency of the internal market. The energy network and the telecommunications network can probably be managed fairly well by private industry but infrastructure is something in which national governments must get involved. It is heartening to see that the Christophersen Commission is looking at around 20 major projects within Europe and seeking to advance them. It is having considerable difficulty in finding the necessary finance at the present time.
Much has been made of the issue of flexibility of wages. There surely must be a happy line between complete freedom for the employee to deal with his employer on a one-to-one basis and grinding down the faces of the poor, which has been held up to us as the consequence of undue flexibility. Between the two it must be possible to maintain a flexible workforce both in this country and in Europe while still offering a modest measure of protection to the weaker members of our society.
Lastly under this heading is improvement in skills. There is a ringing phrase in the report, which, unhappily, I cannot remember, about the need for our adult workforce to maintain its technological skills by further education throughout the working life of the employee. That is absolutely essential and critical if we are to maintain any kind of standard of living and any kind of standard of growth and production within the European continent. My only fear is that one cannot have a technologically efficient workforce unless the basics of education are first established. One fears somewhat for the primary and secondary levels of education when one sees alarming reports in this country, which I am sure can be equalled elsewhere, of children coming out of school unable to do the simplest arithmetical calculations. Even those who can do this are often helpless without an electronic calculator in

347
their hands. The aspiration for a technologically advanced workforce is excellent and indispensable but it must be based on a solid educational foundation.
By way of postscript I should like to take up a point which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and my noble friend Lord Renfrew. I refer to the nature of unemployment. We tell each other often enough that it is the greatest scourge of modern society. That is based on the fact that for many centuries a man owed his self-respect to his ability to provide for his family; and to the extent that he could not do that, he was a defeated man who despised himself and who was often despised by his fellow citizens. I think that is beginning to change. Other institutions change. I can well remember 30 or 40 years ago that any breakdown in marriage was considered the greatest scourge of society at that time. Marriage has changed dramatically in the. past 30 or 40 years. One in three marriages breaks down. There have been tremendous advances in biology and genetics. The next century is going to hold a way of life for society quite unlike anything we have experienced in the past. The same may well be true of employment. We cannot continue to look on unemployment as a scourge of society. We have to begin thinking of how we can change our outlook on work.
I believe that this point has already been made in the debate; namely, that we have a workforce of, shall we say, x million workers, but we have work only for x minus y million people at any one time. There is never going to be full employment again as defined by the nine-to-five job for 48 weeks in the year. So we ought to be looking at how we can share the cake which is going to be available. That can be done in a variety of ways. There is shared work, part-time work, shorter hours, shorter weeks, early retirement and so forth. It would be far more profitable for us to direct our gaze towards the next century when the pattern of work is going to be very different and to spend slightly less time bemoaning the social crisis which is on our hands today.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if this debate has done nothing else it has changed the focus of the discussion about full employment. There can be no question but that everyone believes that full employment would be a good thing if we could get it. The argument and discussion has to be, as it has been today, about what measures we have to take and in what ways we try to achieve full employment. If we can hold the discussion there, in this Chamber and outside, I believe that it will be a great deal more fruitful than slogans about full employment as a political objective.
It is quite clear that the contribution of the European Community to our problems of full employment is limited. There has been agreement on all sides of the House that most of the action has to be taken at national, regional and local levels. There is a good deal of evidence that quite a lot of job creation can take place if it is sensibly investigated and co-ordinated at regional level. We should be looking more closely at that than we have done so far. I have heard little comment about that during the debate.
348
It is true, as has been said, that competitiveness is part of the problem, but only part of it. Much as we wish to see an increase in competitiveness, that is not going to be the full solution to the problem of full employment in this country. I confess that I have not read it, but the OECD report suggests that little of the problem of unemployment in this country is connected with imports from the low-cost, low-wage countries. If the OECD says that, then I suppose to some extent one has to accept it. I used to work in the shoe trade and in that regard there are some industries in this country which certainly are suffering from the import of goods from low-cost countries. With respect to the eminent people who have questioned that, I doubt whether it is easy to write that off as has been the tendency.
Whether we are suffering from the effects on our trade of imports from low-cost countries, there can be no doubt that we should be looking at the employment question as regards the global economy into which we are gradually moving. Surely that cannot be denied. To what extent that global economy has so far extended I leave on one side, but it is going to present us with considerable competition and also with considerable opportunities. We are surely aware that the competition is not only in the unskilled work but also in the higher levels of skilled work and that involving and requiring technical knowledge. The countries from which that competition is coming are raising their levels of work: performance. They have high and rising levels of education and skills. I refer to Japan, the Pacific Rim and China. Surely they must be competitors whom we have to take very seriously in future. But while they are competitors they are also the providers of opportunities because they are growing markets.
I now wish to raise a point which I do not believe has been raised during the discussion. I have heard a number of noble Lords imply that the world is running out of work which needs to be done. Considering that half the world is hungry and that a very high percentage of it is illiterate, that is an extraordinary conclusion at which to arrive. If so much of the world is in the state that it is —and we all know that to be true—it cannot be that there is no work to be done. I fully recognise the difficulties which the countries with high standards of living face in attempting to meet those needs. That is unquestionable. But the needs are there and the work needs to be done by somebody. That surely cannot be denied. We need to keep that in the forefront of our minds when we are discussing the future of employment. We must deal with the situation in terms of a global economy.
I do not take the line taken by some speakers that work is going to run out. I ask the pardon of noble Lords if I repeat this, but it has not been raised ealier today: not only are there enormous unmet needs in the world as a whole, but they are going to become greater. The world population is going to double between now and the year 2030 and 95 per cent. of that growth will occur in the developing countries where: the needs are already extensive. With that increase in population they will become a great deal more extensive. To discuss unemployment without taking that factor into account is a little myopic.

349
There has been general agreement that if we are to improve our position we have to tackle it through investment of various kinds. I do not want to elaborate on that because there is no disagreement about it, except to say that the amount of investment required is, I suspect, a very great deal more than most people envisage. We are woefully behind in a number of areas. I was most interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who spoke of the textile industry. He gave us impressive figures of what it costs in terms of investment to employ one extra person. The textile industry is not exceptional in that. It is the normal experience of improving productivity and taking advantage of the technical developments and the growth in technology which are part of today's debate. The amount of money needed to make the investment which is necessary if we are to keep pace with our competitors, let alone catch up on them, is going to be very great.
Where is it to come from? It is all very well to say that we need to invest; but we have to invest without increasing inflation. We cannot invest just by turning on the printing presses. Investment of the kind we need requires acceptance that there has to be "deferment of gratification" as the phrase goes. We have to proceed very carefully as regards current consumption if we are to have in future the investment which we need. That investment has to take a number of forms. My noble friend Lord Ezra spoke, as others have done, about the excessive amount paid out in dividends in relation to the amount invested in industry. That means that the shareholders have to forgo the short-term benefits of immediate payout in order to have the long-term gains. Industry needs more taxation encouragement through changes in taxation to help small and medium-sized organisations. They should be given every encouragement to plough their profits back into the business to increase their level of productivity. But that means going without some current consumption.
Not only do we need improvements in terms of technical developments, but there is also another large area of investment about which other noble Lords have spoken and to which I want to give particular attention. That will not surprise your Lordships because I have done it before and shall do so again. I refer to the need for much better investment in people and in education and training. I believe that all noble Lords agree on this so one might ask, "Why say it again?". But let us consider how far we have to go. Again, I think that the debate has under-estimated the size of the problem.
Your Lordships will remember how far behind we are in comparison with our competitors in the rest of Europe. At the end of the 1970s, 40 per cent. of our youngsters who left school at the compulsory school-leaving age went either into a job with no training or into unemployment. The comparable proportion in France was 19 per cent., and 9 per cent. in Germany. That was 15 years ago. Those people are now the adult labour force in this country. It is a grossly under-trained and under-educated labour force. That occurred under all governments. I dare say that if we had had a Liberal Government, it would have happened under us, but we cannot be responsible because we were
350
not the Government. Be that as it may, it is a wicked neglect. If you can train 91 per cent. of young Germans, you can train 91 per cent. of young Britons. But we did not do it. Catching up on that backlog will involve a very great deal of investment.
We talk about high quality jobs with high pay. Of course. Who would not want a world full of high quality jobs with high pay? But given that backlog of under-educated and under-trained people, how on earth are we going to project them into high quality, highly paid jobs? That is the problem that we are up against.
Perhaps I may once again make a suggestion that I have put forward previously in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Dahrendorf referred particularly to the appalling waste of youngsters who never enter the labour market and to the damage that that does both to them as people and to society as a whole. Unemployment in middle age or later is sad enough; but by that age people have acquired habits of work and have been part of the labour force. We must not forget that the great majority of those who become unemployed get other jobs within a relatively short period.
The position is quite different for the school leaver who never gets a job. Why cannot we do what has been done and worked extremely well elsewhere? I suggest that companies take on two youngsters for each job. Each youngster should spend half the day working and the other half in training and education. That would bring youngsters into employment while requiring them to be trained and to have additional education. I stress "additional education" because the modern economy requires people who can not only learn things and show competence in their immediate job, but who are sufficiently well educated to be able to learn again and to understand the changes that they will encounter repeatedly throughout their working lives. That requires a good understanding and a good basic education. But that is what the great majority of our young people simply do not have. That suggestion could be carried out. The cost could be shared between the employers and the education authorities which means, sooner or later, the taxpayer. I believe that such a scheme could be applied also to the long-term unemployed who could be given training in the same way.
It is important that we get our young people into the labour market and into the work habit. It is important that, through a process such as I have described, we give them not only an opportunity, but a requirement, to learn, to improve their education and to gain better skills. When I was chairman of our area Manpower board at the beginning of the youth training scheme, the employers with whom we worked complained again and again that they had to spend a great deal of their time doing what should have happened in school. They could not begin the training until the educational gaps had been filled. That is the level from which we are working. That is where the money has to go if we are to be able to get over the appalling disease of youth unemployment with all the social consequences that flow from it.
Given that that is the labour force that we have, we are not going to be able to get many of those people into the high level jobs that we want them to have. So what

351
are they going to do? Here we come up against the question of wage levels and the minimum wage. I do not believe in a minimum wage, but I do believe that we cannot have people working for a slum level of earnings unless we do something to supplement it. My own view is that at the lower levels of the employment scale, we have to look at what is involved. That means lower wages than a great many people would willingly sanction. In my view, that has to be supplemented with something along the lines of a citizen's income so that we have a minimum income, not a minimum wage. That would meet the social objections to low pay while making it possible for people to gain employment who have no skills to offer and who are not of very great value to an employer.
People will say, "Ah, but you are supplementing the exploitative employer who pays low wages". But what is exploitation? It is paying someone less than their share of the wealth that they have created. Exploitation can happen in all sorts of ways. You can be highly paid but still be exploited because somebody else is taking the share that you have contributed. You can be lowly paid and not exploited because you have not made a greater contribution to the total wealth of the undertaking than the money that you are taking out. We have to think hard about the question of exploitation. We must recognise that it will be necessary to allow pay to drop for some. But, for decency's sake, we have to supplement their income from the wealth of the rest of us who, in conscience, do not want to see standards drop too low.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, it is entirely appropriate that the two Motions are being debated together since they impact upon each other. Moreover, we have had a most interesting debate as a result of combining them. I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the way in which they introduced this most interesting debate.
I regard this report of the Select Committee as one of the most interesting and challenging that has come before your Lordships' House. It comes before us at a time when there is concern throughout the European Union at the very high levels of unemployment and the problems that are seemingly intractable. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with the first paragraph of the committee's conclusions. It is so important that I should like to put it on the record. It states:
"High unemployment not only takes its toll on individuals, particularly young people and the long-term unemployed. It also involves damage to families and communities, a substantial loss of output for the economy, a heavy burden on public expenditure, and a threat to the cohesion of society as a whole. In our view, unemployment is the most important social problem facing us at the present time".
That encapsulates what our debate is all about.
We are all aware—every noble Lord who has spoken seems to be aware—of the destructive and divisive effects of unemployment on society as a whole. On account of the high cost, the loss of tax from people who could be employed and the cost of benefits for those who cannot find employment, governments, including
352
our own, are now constantly looking at ways of cutting other social costs. So we have had a whole series of Bills in this House designed quite specifically to cut social costs. Moreover, the Government justify a large amount of their attempted deregulation as removing burdens on business in order that it should become more competitive. A number of these issues are dealt with at length in the report of the committee.
The committee gave detailed consideration to the Commission White Paper relating to growth, competitiveness and employment, to which reference has been made throughout the debate. That is also a fascinating document. It would appear that the Select Committee found itself in substantial agreement with a lot of the analysis. There seems to have been agreement that then: is a difference between cyclical and structural unemployment; in other words, it distinguishes between the short-term and long-term problem. But the report makes the point that structural unemployment has been increasing in the Community over a long period. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, underlined that in his; contribution to the debate this afternoon. The White Paper states that this can be attributed in some degree to a lack of growth and loss of competitiveness. The point is also made that these factors do not: on their own explain the continuing high level of unemployment. It is interesting that lack of investment is seen as a major reason. That has also been cited by a number of noble Lords this afternoon.
Before I prepared for this debate I read again the report of the Engineering Employers' Federation, Action for Growth and Competitiveness. It says, as it has been saying for some time:
"To obtain a lasting economic recovery with more jobs and rising living standards, there must be a large increase in investment, especially investment in UK manufacturing. If investment is not greatly increased the productive capacity of the UK economy will be unable to support even today's levels of employment and income. The recovery would stop and the UK would face further decline and recession".
It makes another point which I believe has some relevance and importance:
"The UK is an industrial nation with an anti-industrial culture. This bias has to be removed if we are to survive … How can it be possible for a nation to have a strategy for its spending activities such as defence, health and education without one for the creation of wealth?"
In case it is thought strange that I, a former trade union official, should quote extensively from an employers' document, I should say that it is my understanding that those sentiments are supported by the unions in the industry.
Quite obviously, the report of the Select Committee drew attention to the problems of unemployment within the Community since that was its remit. Nevertheless, there was an acceptance of the fact that each member state had to seek its own solutions, although areas were identified in which it was thought that the Community could play an important role. These are set out in some detail on page 35 of the report.
However, some of the issues identified in the White Paper do not seem to apply to the United Kingdom and raise questions about this country's overall policies. It appears that, of all EU member states, the United Kingdom has one of the least regulated labour markets,

353
the lowest unit labour costs and the least employment protection. Indeed, the Government boast in their propaganda aimed at possible external investors of the low wage and social costs in Britain. Furthermore, they proudly declare that it is not necessary in the United Kingdom to recognise trade unions. That unregulated stance does not appear to have done much to reduce unemployment in the United Kingdom.
The Government boast that they have created jobs, but close examination reveals that a large number of them are part-time, many undertaken by women for very low wages. I am certainly not against part-time jobs. But the trouble with such jobs is that they are often very low paid and have no employment rights at all.
Moreover, the Government have changed the way in which unemployment statistics are recorded so many times that they are now widely disbelieved. In many areas there are very high levels of male unemployment, long-term unemployment and —very seriously—young male unemployment. It is the latter group which is allegedly responsible for much of the social problems that have arisen in the past decade. They are problems that have led to the introduction by the Government of the kind of legislation that your Lordships' House has been considering recently such as the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. That is another of the hidden costs of unemployment.
Nor would it appear that comparisons with the United States are helpful. There may have been job creation but the jobs have often been badly paid and of poor quality. As for Japan, that country has less unemployment and greater productivity and growth, but its tradition and culture are very different. It has a commitment to lifetime employment and relatively low participation by women in the workforce, although that is changing. What is of interest is the high level of Japanese investment, particularly in R&D. When I was in Japan several years ago I was struck by the way in which the financial services and manufacturing sectors worked together, with banks in particular lending at low interest rates and over long periods.
I have participated in recent debates in your Lordships' House when the Government have introduced measures that are clearly designed to cut public expenditure costs but in fact simply pass those costs on to employers: for example, the Statutory Sick Pay Bill (now an Act) and the measure to deal with statutory maternity pay. Furthermore, the Government have recently introduced insurance premium tax. Since all employers must quite rightly be covered by employers' liability, that measure is undoubtedly a tax on employment. Surely all of these are burdens on business. Yet a number of changes made in industrial law, most of which remove rights from trade unions and their members, are presented as removing burdens on business. One cannot help feeling that there is an ideological motivation at work here. The Government clearly feel that employees with grievances should put up and shut up and not do the obvious thing, which is to join with others similarly affected via the trade union movement.
354
One of the features of the White Paper, and particularly the Green Paper on European Social Policy presented by Mr. Flynn, is the assumption that co-operation with the social partners—the trade unions —is a good thing. In a section dealing with the reinforcement of the social dialogue Mr. Flynn emphasises the role of the social partners in the process of European construction, even if the process of social dialogue has been "slow to mature", as he puts it. He has said that in so far as the representative organisations of employers and trade unions speak for memberships throughout the Union, to involve them in the social dialogue is an important element of democratisation. I notice that in their evidence to the Select Committee the TUC representatives made rather similar points.
It is against this background that I wonder why the Government insisted on opting out of the social chapter. Ministers constantly reiterate—we have heard it again this evening from the Government Benches—that this has been done to avoid burdens on business. They treat it as though it were an enormous triumph for United Kingdom diplomacy, that they are standing up for Britain and so on. To listen to them anyone would think that acceptance of the social chapter involved enormous social costs. It does not mean anything of the kind.
The social chapter simply sets out a series of objectives: the promotion of employment; the improvement of living and working conditions; the development of proper social protection; a dialogue between management and labour and so on. One would have thought that all of those would be entirely desirable but not very specific. There is a commitment to the health and safety of workers and to equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities, the latter obligation being one dating back to the original Treaty of Rome. There is a commitment to the provision of information to and consultation with workers, but nothing about wages, recognition of unions, collective bargaining or other such issues.
It is a very modest agenda, but by opting out the Government have signalled that they want no part of the social dialogue. In practice, the other 11 member states which have signed up will proceed within the framework of the chapter and United Kingdom employers, particularly multinationals, will find themselves affected whether or not they want to be. The United Kingdom Government will have had no input.
In the meantime, the Government have abolished wages councils—the last remaining minimum wage protection in this country—and have done so with the usual plea that minimum standards are a burden on business. But there is absolutely no evidence that abolition has resulted in more jobs. On the contrary, the Low Pay Unit has demonstrated that already low rates have in many instances been lowered still further. Indeed, there was no evidence that the existence of wages councils, which go back to 1911, meant a reduction in jobs throughout that period either. In other words, the abolition of wages councils has allowed unscrupulous employers to pay as little as they can get away with and the market gives no protection to the poor and the vulnerable.

355
Nor is there any very striking evidence in the report or the White Paper that the existence of minimum standards in other EU countries is a major cause of unemployment. No, the indications are as already stated: lack of investment, high interest rates and a mismatch of skills with requirements.
This is a very large subject and it is not possible to do justice to it and the issues raised by the noble Viscount's Motion in the time available. However, I would say in regard to the problems which he identified that the questions of employment and the onward march of new technology have been identified before, and from within the trade union movement. As long ago as 1978 two colleagues of mine, Clive Jenkins and Barry Sheerman, produced a book called The Collapse of Work in which they argued strongly for a change in attitudes to working hours and working lives. They urged that traditional patterns would have to change. It seems that we are a very long way from achieving much in that direction. The UK Government recently opted out of the EU directive on working time and have secured an extension of time before anything needs to be done in this country.
Nor will all our problems be solved by education, although it can go some way to assist. Certainly the concept of lifetime education is something that we should all support. However, arising from all that material, it seems that, while there are no easy solutions —and I emphasise that—either in the UK or at European level, there is an agreement that growth and improved competitiveness are essential if unemployment is to be reduced and that one of the requirements for achieving that is a better trained and skilled workforce and one which is adaptable.
In the meantime, there would appear to be two schools of thought. The first is that espoused by the Government: that social provision must be cut back; that private is better than public, whether in the provision of pensions or anything else; that trade unions should be actively discouraged and the social chapter opposed; and that anything in the nature of employee rights, including wage protection, must be abandoned. That is what I call the bargain basement concept. It is self-defeating. There is no way in which we or other EU countries can compete with China and other newly emerging countries in the low-wage stakes.
Then there is the alternative, some of which emerges from the White and Green Papers to which we have referred and which was dealt with earlier by my noble friend Lord Eatwell. We should adopt a strategy for full employment and should attempt to do so in concert with our European neighbours while accepting that each member state should endeavour to work out its own solutions. We can actively encourage manufacturing industry through incentives for investment, both public and private. And, incidentally, we can give some help, more help than has been given hitherto, to small businesses, because I agree with everything said this afternoon about the employment-creating potential of small firms and the need to ensure that they receive much more support.
We can seek to involve workforces through the kind of dialogues recommended and seek to establish
356
procedures for consultation. We can invest more in training and retraining and we can provide a reasonable framework for good industrial relations by removing much of the restrictive anti-union legislation which now disfigures our statute book, most of which is contrary to ILO conventions and our international commitments.
We can accept the social chapter and seek to work with our partners in the EU in line with the social objectives outlined in the White and Green Papers. We can turn away from the socially divisive and destructive policies of the past decade which have brought great prosperity, even wealth, to a few people but unemployment, degradation and despair to too many of our fellow citizens.
We can make a fresh start but not, I fear, with the present Government. I commend the committee on an excellent report.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, many hours ago my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said that I would respond to the detailed analysis and comments raised in the debate. I have to say—and I believe that I see some agreement from the two Opposition Front Benches—that the sheer range and extent of suggestions, both good and possibly less good, is such that it makes it somewhat difficult for me to do that. However, I shall certainly take note of all the suggestions that have been made, but I apologise in advance for not being able to respond to every point in detail, whether it be on taxation, national insurance, balance of trade, early retirement, liberalisation of world trade, or whatever it may be.
Having said that, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the two noble Lords who have initiated the debate. I believe that few subjects could be more important than those highlighted in the two Motions before us. Job creation is at the very heart of the debate within the European Community on growth, competitiveness and employment.
Within our own lifetime, we have seen dramatic changes. We have seen changes in technology, as has been pointed out, changes in structure in the world economy and above all, changes in ideas. It is a little more than 15 years ago that the first of the Conservative Governments led by my noble friend Lady Thatcher was elected. It is very easy to forget now how profound was the revolution in ideas initiated by that election. It is a revolution that affected not just the United Kingdom; but the ideas put into place over the past 15 years by my right honourable friend the present Prime Minister and by my noble friend Lady Thatcher are now in place across the world. Privatisation, competition and deregulation were radical ideas in 1979; but they have now permeated the thinking of governments across the world. Above all, the European Community itself is now beginning to recognise the need for Europe to regain its lost competitiveness.
Much remains to be done. Old attitudes die hard, particularly in the party opposite. But progress is being made. Last December the Brussels European Council agreed a common framework. Much of what it proposed is welcome: measures to improve training and education; measures to reduce the costs of taking on

357
extra employees; measures to keep unemployed people in touch with the world of work; and, above all, measures to help to reduce the very high levels of unemployment among Europe's young people. Those ideas will be taken further by the heads of government in their discussions in Corfu later this week.
I believe that no one in this debate underestimates the challenge that is being faced. As has been made repeatedly clear, nearly 20 million citizens of the European Union are unemployed. That is around 11 per cent. of the workforce. Obviously we are affected in this country; but we are the only major European Union country where unemployment is now below 10 per cent. and falling. The proportion of long-term unemployed —and I believe that most of us would agree that long-term unemployment is one of the most important matters—on the latest comparable figures is again the lowest of any country in the European Union.
Having said that, an unemployment level of 9.4 per cent., as it is in this country, is still far too high. I very much welcome the further fall of 20,000 announced last week but we shall not be satisfied until it has fallen very much further, as I am confident it will do.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, quite rightly raised the question not of unemployment but of employment. The noble Lord claimed that employment had not risen at all when unemployment had gone down. I assure the noble Lord that that is simply not the case. The labour force survey suggested that employment has grown by about 150,000 during the past year while the figure for the workforce in employment, the second count of employment, is still somewhat less but is still up. I accept, as the noble Lord said, that employment does not appear to have grown as rapidly as unemployment has been falling but fewer people are looking for work at the moment, primarily because the working age population is barely growing and the numbers staying on in education have grown substantially over the past few years. We believe that those demographic factors mean that there is much more scope for an increase in employment to feed through into reductions in unemployment.
The noble Lord also quoted some very interesting figures on the level of employment and on what he described as "disguised unemployment". He challenged me to give the Government's response. As is so often the case with statistics given by the noble Lords opposite, I am afraid that I do not recognise that description. The noble Lord claimed that the proportion of our male population in work was relatively small. On the contrary, the proportion of men of working age— that is, between the ages of 16 and 64 —in work is higher, at some 78 per cent., in the United Kingdom than all the other EC countries, with the exception of Portugal and Denmark.
Moreover, if we also include women—and I imagine that the noble Lord would think it quite right to do so —the proportion at 70 per cent. is higher than all but one of our EC partners and a full 10 per cent. higher than in France. I simply cannot accept the noble Lord's claim that we are lagging behind our European partners in that respect.
358
I return to the figures on unemployment. I should like to draw the attention of the House to one particular point which my noble friends Lord Caldecote and Lord Boardman, and other speakers, rightly stressed. I refer to youth unemployment. In Europe as a whole we have youth unemployment at little over 20 per cent.—at 20.6 per cent. That means that one in five young people in Europe are unemployed. However, again, in the United Kingdom, we have one of the better figures. I accept that 15 per cent. is still far too high, but it is well below the figures of some of our European Union partners, such as France with 24 per cent., where they have a national statutory minimum wage, or Spain with 38 per cent. where, again, they have a statutory minimum wage.
That, briefly, is the size of the challenge. We live in Europe where one in 10 adults are out of work, and, far worse, where one in five young people are approaching their adult lives blighted by unemployment. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am much obliged. The Minister just quoted a figure of one in 10 adults as being unemployed. However, from the figures that he gave earlier, that figure would seem to be nearer 25 per cent.; that is, one in four. The Minister quoted a figure of 74 per cent. of males between the ages of 16 and 64 as being in employment. By my calculations, that means that 25 per cent. of them, and not 10 per cent., are unemployed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is wrong. The figures I quoted were 78 per cent. of men in work and 70 per cent. of both sexes. The noble Lord must accept that not all of those between 78 per cent. and 100 per cent. are necessarily unemployed. I am sure that the noble Lord would accept that there are many people in education and that there are many others who are incapable of work, many of whom are women. Indeed, there are many women who are looking after a family. I stick by the figures that I gave.
Against the background of my earlier remarks, we warmly welcome the report produced by the Select Committee under the supervision of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on growth, competitiveness and employment. The committee's report is entirely correct to emphasise the structural causes of unemployment in the European Community. The underlying level of unemployment in the Community has risen in each economic cycle over the past 20 years from less than 2.5 per cent. in the late 1960s to more than 10 per cent. at present.
The experience of the Community's main competitors has been very different. In successive economic cycles, unemployment has not risen to anything like the same extent in North America or in Japan. Moreover, unlike the Community, North America and Japan have experienced significant job growth over the past two decades. I simply do not accept the implication of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that they are not real jobs. However, that point was well dealt with by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky.
The causes of structural unemployment in the Community are, as the fourth of the report's conclusions

359
indicate, complex and interrelated. The Government very much agree with the emphasis in the committee's report on the labour market factors which have created the problem. However, as has been made clear from the memorandum that we published to the report, the Government are committed to the effective implementation of the conclusions of the Brussels European Council on the White Paper.
Of course, as the committee's report indicates, there can be no quick fix. As the conclusions of the Brussels European Council make clear, it is for individual member states to take appropriate action in the light of their own particular circumstances. Again, that was something that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, underlined. That is why the Brussels European Council endorsed three key objectives to combat unemployment. First, a stable economic framework; secondly, a Community that is internationally competitive and open to international trade; and, thirdly, reforms in the labour market. I certainly recommend that other European Union countries should consider, like the United Kingdom, reducing the non-wage labour costs as we have. However, whether we can go quite as far as my noble friend Lord Caldecote suggested in abolishing national insurance contributions is something on which I would rather not comment at present. Nevertheless, I shall certainly pass on the suggestion to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I certainly endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. On our non-wage labour costs, we have a figure far lower than our European Union partners. I should also like to underline what my noble friend Lord Clark said about the level of strikes in the country. In place of strife, there are now an estimated 0.6 million working days lost through industrial action in 1993. In fact, that figure is one-twentieth of the 1970s average of 12.9 million.
The Government will continue their policy of making the labour market even more efficient. We believe that the fruits of that policy are now clear. Unemployment has now been falling for over a year and earlier and faster than any of the pundits ever expected. Perhaps I may also say that we very much welcome the policy report of the OECD's employment-unemployment study referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and other speakers. The quality of analysis contained in the report is impressive, as is the case with so much else of the work of the OECD. It makes a significant contribution to the international discussion of unemployment and employment. The conclusions of the report reinforce the conclusions that emerged from the European Union and from the Group of Seven: high unemployment is not inevitable, but it demonstrates the need for structural reforms particularly within labour markets; OECD economies need to adapt more rapidly to change than they have done in the past; attempts to erect protectionist barriers or to burden the labour market with unnecessary regulations are counter-productive; and responsibility must lie with individuals and companies as well as with government.
Those conclusions echo those of last December's European Council and the G7 Jobs Conference in Detroit. They are also fully in line with what the United
360
Kingdom has sought to do over the past 15 years. Virtually all the main recommendations have already been enacted by this Government. I shall not burden the House with a line-by-line analysis. However, I should like to pick up just one or two of the key recommendations.
A balance exists between the rights of those in work and the need for people out of work to get the new jobs. Of course people in work have rights, and no one, whatever the noble Baroness might have said, advocates total deregulation of the labour market, and certainly we in this Government do not But employment protection rights must not be at the expense of unemployed people who do not have the jobs and none of the benefits—paid holidays, pension entitlements, and so forth—which go with the jobs.
Some employment rights are quite simply not negotiable. I believe we are fortunate in this country in having one of the best health and safety records in the world. I can give an assurance to the noble Baroness that we shall keep it that way. We have no intention of taking up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, of aping Mexico, or wherever. We have one of the most: comprehensive—possibly the most comprehensive— social security safety net systems in the whole of Europe. Nor does a desire for a flexible, deregulated labour market mean that—as the noble Lord tried to suggest—we wish to squeeze pay levels to unreal levels. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, seemed to imply that. I can give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that he will find that the take-home pay of broadly comparable industrial workers in the United Kingdom or in Germany is much the same. What is very different is that the actual costs to the employer of paying those people are much much less in this country, and that is why over 40 per cent. of the inward investment to the European Union comes to this country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is that why title United Kingdom is boasting that the labour costs are far lower here than they are in Europe?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would be delighted to boast that our labour costs are lower. What I was saying is that the take-home wage of individuals is not lower. It is far better that the labour costs should be lower and that is the point that everyone—like the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf—has been trying to make that we have much lower non-wage labour costs and we shall continue to try and keep them lower.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Henley: For the last time!
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, it is the first time I have stood up. Will the noble Lord tell us whether he disagrees with his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who in his lecture on 4th May said that a greater,
"gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid"
was both,

361
"inevitable and … desirable"?
Lord Henley: My Lords,—of course I agree with everything my right honourable friend says. What I was talking about, and what I was trying to make clear, was that the difference in take-home pay between an industrial worker in this country and an industrial worker in Germany was broadly the same. What is different to the employer—and that is why the inward investment is coming to this country—is that it costs far less to employ that employee here than it costs in Germany, France or wherever.
I do believe, though, that we have to strike the right balance on employment protection. I am certainly pleased that the European Union institutions are beginning to recognise that the unemployed too have rights, and those rights include not being denied a job because unnecessary and costly legislation deters employers from recruiting additional staff.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky talked about non-wage ways of supplementing income, and this was something touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and I think, to some extent, touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, if I followed her correctly. What I should like to do is to point out that there is just such a system in this country—and that is in the form of family credit—which was explicitly mentioned in the OECD report. Noble Lords may think that the policy is not necessarily extensive enough, but I certainly hope that my noble friend Lord Skidelsky would accept that it is one of the features of the United Kingdom's supply side approach where the benefit system is increasingly aimed at going with the grain of the market.
If I may, I should like to turn to the impact of technology, which is the subject of the debate of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. Obviously, as the noble Viscount put it, the impact of new technology can destroy jobs. But as my noble friend stressed, and as the OECD were first to point out—I quote from the report,
"history has shown that when technological progress accelerates, so do growth, living standards and employment".
I believe that is something that I can agree with, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, agrees with, even if we fail to agree on a great many other matters. After a comprehensive review of the evidence in a range of countries, the OECD concluded that technological change was not a major or even an important cause of today's unemployment. Technology was also one of the central issues considered by the Group of Seven countries at their conference in Detroit. I can hardly do better than to quote from the conclusions of the conference as summarised by the United States Treasury Secretary, Lloyd Bentsen:
"These rapid advances in technology we are seeing, where computer chip speed seems to double every week, will make us more productive. Using technology in innovative ways, and spreading it throughout our economy, will multiply the benefits of that technology. And that will create more jobs.
Moreover, history teaches us that jobs created by technology gains are better paying jobs … We must get that message across. And we must make certain our citizens are trained to keep up so they can tap the potential available to them …"
Everyone would agree with the sentiments expressed by the United States Treasury Secretary. He ended by stressing the importance of training, which again is
362
something which a number of noble Lords stressed, including lastly, but by no means least, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
It is for that reason that last month my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced a package of new vocational education and training measures as part of the White Paper referred to by my noble friend at the beginning of the debate. My right honourable friend announced accelerated modern apprenticeships for 18 to 19 year-olds which will produce 30,000 extra young skilled and qualified technicians, supervisors and craftsmen each year. That is in addition to the 40,000 qualified young people to be produced each year by the original modern apprenticeship scheme.
We shall provide better careers guidance for young people. We shall fund a training boost for small firms to update the managerial, supervisory and technical skills of 24,000 key employees.
Only last week my department launched the new small firms training loan scheme to encourage small firms to consider doing yet more in the field of training. I am grateful for the comments of my noble friend Lord Clark on the importance of small firms in job creation.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education also announced, there will be a wide range of measures to raise standards and widen choice in the vocational element of education in our schools, including a new general diploma for 16 to 18 year-olds enabling young people to combine academic and vocational qualifications in a single package of guaranteed quality.
Technology is constantly advancing and will continue to do so. It is not a painless process. Some believe that it is destroying jobs and contributing to higher levels of unemployment. I do not accept that. Nor, I believe, did most of the speakers this afternoon. There are many potential benefits from technology for the wealth of nations and for jobs. However, to exploit these fully we need to adjust quickly to the changes that technology brings. People need to be increasingly flexible and adaptable about where they work and how they work, and to replenish constantly the range of skills and abilities they use at work.
I believe that we are well placed to take advantage of the opportunities for wealth creation and more jobs that new technology will continue to bring. The United Kingdom has the basic framework of policies in place. The Group of Seven, the OECD and, increasingly, the European Union, endorse our approach. The proof of its effectiveness is clear. Unemployment has fallen by more than 300,000 since economic recovery got under way. The proportion of our working age population in the workforce is among the highest in Europe, as I made clear earlier. Inflation is at the lowest level for a generation. One in four employers expect to step up recruitment this summer. We have sound economic policies and the most flexible labour market in Europe. We are poised for sustained non-inflationary growth, and we are determined to achieve it.
9.16 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and constructive, if rather long, debate. I thank all those who have contributed.
The debate has shown that there is widespread agreement that job creation leading to lower unemployment must have the highest priority. It has also shown that low inflation and competitiveness are necessary conditions for job creation but are not themselves sufficient. I hope that we can return to the subject in perhaps a year's time when we are further out of the recession. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Growth, Competitiveness and Employment: ECC Report
9.17 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment in the European Community (7th Report, HL Paper 43).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, for providing the opportunity for this debate today. It has been most valuable and interesting. After a long debate I would add only one short personal comment.
I do not think that anyone who has spoken said that in relation to structural unemployment, as distinct from arguments about the latest figures for cyclical recovery, we were too gloomy in the Select Committee. Nor has anyone argued that we missed a magic solution which was just round the corner. Therefore, I believe that the problem will remain, and at some stage there will have to be new thinking about patterns of work and the labour intensity of work. That is not the same as saying that work has run out, but the whole question of the nature of work in our society will need further thought. However, that is for another day. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment in the European Community (7th Report, HL Paper A3).—(Lord Hunt of Tanworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
9.20 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is the one that was amended and piloted through another place with enormous political skill by Roger Berry. It outlaws unjustified discrimination against disabled people, giving them rights in employment, housing, education
364
and public transport. It requires reasonable accommodation to be made for disabled people in all those areas. By accommodation we mean provision. It makes unlawful direct or indirect discrimination in the provision of goods and services such as banking, insurance and recreation.
The Bill sets up a disability rights commission to pursue those objectives, to investigate complaints and to assist disabled people to enforce their rights.
The Bill was given powerful support by all the main disability organisations and members of the parliamentary all-party disablement group. In addition to Dr. Berry, to whom I have referred, they notably included Alfred Morris, who drew up the detailed Bill two years ago, Sir John Hannam, co-chairman of the group, Barry Sheerman and Alan Howarth.
It is with a sense of incredulity that one realises that in 1994 it is perfectly legal to discriminate in so many areas against Britain's 6.5 million disabled people. Stripping the term "discrimination" down to stark reality, it means this: employers saying, "No disabled people need apply"; landlords saying, "We don't want you living here"; seaside resorts saying, "No disabled wanted"; and pubs, clubs, cinemas, concert halls and even hotels banning disabled people. We applaud the ending of South Africa's apartheid system with its repugnant "No blacks allowed" notices and complacently accept our very own offensive system which permits "No disabled allowed" notices.
Our tolerance of the humiliation, embarrassment, indignity, sadness, isolation and often heartbreak of disabled people is our shame. The Bill is a legislative response to a cry of pain; one that has echoed from millions of people throughout the years.
As this House passed all the stages of a Bill to outlaw discrimination against disabled people two years ago, it might reasonably be asked why I am introducing this Bill today. The main reason is to prevent an unnecessary conflict between the Government and disabled people. The Government are rejecting a Bill which they do not seem to realise is not the one to which they took such exception. As a result they are fighting an imaginary battle and creating bitterness and frustration among disabled people who are now ready to fight—and, of course, many of us will support them.
It is extraordinary that as recently as last Thursday, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, normally co-operative and helpful, should talk of "potentially huge costs of implementation". He spoke of the assessment of costs as more than £17 billion even though he knew, and indeed told the House, that it was an estimate based on up to a five-year period for the implementation of the Bill. But there is no five-year period now in the Bill.
There is absolutely no point in referring to a cost assessment based on an implementation period no longer in the Bill. This kind of shadow boxing with no opponent in sight makes the Government look both aggressive and silly. They must check the contents of the Bill.
In the United States, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, there was a 20-year phasing-in period in some cases. The sponsors of this Bill have gone further and have left the Government free to work out

365
the length of time necessary for the changes to be made. Parliament would then decide, and nothing could be fairer than that.
The Government's cost estimates were heavily criticised but now they have been torpedoed by the amendments to the time period. For example, with a short time span, some trains and buses might have to be replaced solely for the purpose of giving access to disabled people. With a longer span, they can be replaced with better ones when they have come to the end of their natural life. The difference in cost is vast.
Everyone knows that releasing the energies and talents of millions of disabled people, taking them off social security benefits and allowing them to apply their abilities and skills to industry, commerce and small business will bring enormous financial benefits. So why are Ministers speaking only of a comprehensive cost assessment and refusing a cost benefit assessment? They must think we are easily misled.
If Ministers think that the sponsors of the Bill or indeed disabled people really want to impose an expensive law that would threaten the viability of employers, they must be even more remote from Members of this House and from disabled people than they appear to be already. Disabled people are reasonable people. If anything, they have been too patient and undemanding. Neither the Government nor the economy have anything to fear from the Bill. Employers will be in difficulty only if they fail to make reasonable accommodation. The Bill says specifically that there shall be no "undue hardship" on business or any other organisation. It also provides that the disability rights commission shall not have a policy-making function but that its codes of practice shall be introduced through the Secretary of State and subject to parliamentary approval.
I have stressed that the Bill is neither threatening nor obsessive because it is the Government's misguided views that have caused the sequence of events leading to its introduction today. The Government have repeatedly said "No" in one way or another for 12 years. After the report of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People in 1982—and I pay tribute to its chairman, Sir Peter Large —I brought in the first Bill to outlaw unjustified discrimination. Since then, there have been 12 further attempts, all of which have failed. The issue has been fully discussed and carefully considered in another place, and it was scrupulously examined here when the splendid efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, resulted in the passage of a related Bill.
Other countries—Australia, New Zealand, France, Sweden, Canada and the United States of America— have already outlawed discrimination. Britain trails behind. We can, however, learn from the experience of those countries. Let us take, for example, the United States, the spiritual home of competitive enterprise. It would never tolerate the shackling or the burdening of business. That country's Americans with Disabilities Act, which was signed by President Bush in 1990, is more ambitious and pervasive than our Act. Yet Robert Mather, a US attorney who oversees the implementation of the ADA, told me last week that the Act had helped
366
business and that, far from imposing heavy costs, had changed disabled people from tax users to tax payers,-giving them money to spend on goods and services, creating new markets and more jobs. There has undoubtedly been a benefit to the economy as well as to individuals.
The reasonable accommodations that have been made by employers in the United States to enable disabled people to work have not been onerous. The majority have cost less than 500 dollars. Senator Harkin, chair of the Senate sub-committee on disability policy, has written to tell me that early, exaggerated estimates, based on misunderstanding and irrational fears—I hope the Minister is listening—about litigation and unreason-able, costly requirements have proved to be unfounded. Nor has there been much litigation. I am told that the United States Department of Justice has participated in, or initiated, only 16 lawsuits since the Act was passed.
This year, 1994, 12 years after the initial report, the Government have indicated that they will begin talks "as soon as possible" on plans to help disabled people. Well, fancy that! Frankly, my fear is that this move is a belated, grudging response to pressure, and that the Government will attempt to fob off Parliament with minimal, piecemeal concessions. But attempts to deal with some issues and exclude others, such as transport and education, are bound to fail. Access to employment will be of little use if disabled people do not have adequate qualifications, or if they do not have public transport to get to work. Legislation must be comprehensive—which is what this Bill aims to be. Selective rights are of little value.
I have taken some trouble to explain the present situation regarding the Bill which should make it acceptable to the Government and to Parliament. However, I hope that no Minister will be under any illusion. This is a powerful Bill, one which is designed to lay the foundations of a new order for disabled people. It aims to transform the whole ethos of society in its relationships to disablement. It will consign to history the evil of discrimination, the arrogance of authority to exclude disabled people and the capacity of some to oppress them. It will open new vistas only dreamt of in the past by disabled people. It will confer the most basic rights of all—the rights to have the same respect, the same opportunity and the same freedom as anyone else. It will make disabled people equal in the eyes of the law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
9.34 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am sure that we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for his very clear introduction of the Bill, and for giving us this early opportunity to assess the situation in which we find ourselves today. Some of us can recall debates on similar Bills in the past in both Houses. I must bear some responsibility, because two of those Bills were Private Member's Bills of mine. It is therefore appropriate for me to recall the circumstances.
Twenty-six years ago in another place I was successful in the annual ballot and introduced what was

367
the very first Private Member's Bill of this kind on disabled people. I have a copy of the Bill with me today in the short form that Bills took in those days. My seven supporting sponsors, from all parties, included a former Labour Cabinet Minister and a certain Mr. J. Ashley.
Under that Bill a disablement commission would have been established to report to the Government and make recommendations. The measure was short, simple and inexpensive. After the Second Reading debate in March 1969, the Government forced a Division on the Bill with a Whip applied. My Bill was defeated by only four votes. That was a Labour Government and I was a Member of the Shadow Cabinet. The noble Lord spoke about the Government as aggressive and silly. I can assure noble Lords that the Government at that time was thought by people outside Parliament to have been very aggressive and silly for having, by vote, rejected that simple Bill.
At that time I was mainly concerned with the financial plight of the severely disabled—for example, those who from birth or early youth had been disabled. There was nothing available for them except National Assistance, later to be known as supplementary benefit. None of the allowances and benefits which came in later existed at that time. Only the war disabled and industrially injured received disability payments.
Two or three of us in the other place had started the parliamentary campaign in the mid-1960s. The organisation Disabled Income Group (DIG) was being formed at the same time outside Parliament. During 1966 and 1967 I had pressed for a national inquiry to estimate the numbers of severely disabled who were hidden in the community and supported by their families and voluntary organisations. The Government of that time, to their credit, at last had decided on an inquiry and had announced it in a parliamentary reply to me on 23rd October 1967—I give dates for anybody who wants to look up all these matters as I do not want to take too long. That report, when published about three years later, became well known as the Amelia Harris report. It was the first to provide the essential information that we sought.
That is the background to the first Bill of this kind. Following its demise, I and others continued our pressure. In reply to a Question of mine a few months later, the Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson) said that the Government would "consider" the proposal for a commission to inquire into the problems of the disabled. There was a change of government a few months later.
The second of my Bills, which I introduced in your Lordships' House, was put forward in November 1983. It was the Disabled Persons Bill. Its Second Reading took place the following December. It went through all its stages in this House with some amendments to meet points which had been raised. It received its Third Reading in this House on 12th April 1984. No time was allotted for it in the other place, which is something that we have come to understand. In that Bill again there was to be a commission to examine the disadvantages experienced by disabled people and deliberate discrimination. It was intended that the commission
368
should make recommendations and report from time to time. It also was a short, simple and inexpensive measure.
With both my Private Member's Bills, I personally was not very hopeful that they would be acceptable to the governments of the day—first, a Labour Government and, secondly, a Conservative Government. My main object was to have the proposals discussed and to press the governments themselves to produce some legislation. Governments have the expertise and the resources to cover a very wide and complex subject, though Members and the voluntary organisations which assist them have done their best.
I declare an interest because I have been partially disabled for the past 49 years. I was 23 when I was wounded and 25 when I came out of hospital. I was still in a wheelchair and on crutches. In passing, I should mention that I benefited from some positive discrimination. Having been successful in the Foreign Office examination, I then had to overcome the hurdle of the medical test. I was, of course, still not able to walk. Because I was a healthy specimen in all other respects the chief medical examiner made the memorable observation, "As a diplomat you will not need to walk or stand"—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Just lie, my Lords!
Lord Campbell of Croy: —and I was accepted. From that background I offer some thoughts on what is now the best way forward. I understand the general frustration. The Bill, in the same form as its last experience, will provide further opportunities for discussion in its various stages in this House. However, the Government made clear that they are not prepared to accept it in this form but will put forward their own proposals soon for consultation.
The principles of providing more opportunities, reducing obstacles and outlawing deliberate discrimination are supported by virtually everyone both inside and outside Parliament. The Government of the day agree, but find themselves in the dock, derided as apparently insensitive to the plight of disabled people. Previous governments have also been in the dock in the same way, as I indicated. We have seen the situation before with a Labour Government.
In the meantime, over the past 25 years, under governments of both political parties, much progress has been made in improving financial and special arrangements for disabled people. Those of us who have been working in the Parliamentary All-Party Disablement Group have been much involved in all that. Also, in the International Year of Disabled People in 1981, in which I had to play a leading part, great advances were made in making the general public aware of different kinds of disability and understanding what was needed.
The difficulty for governments seems to be legislation with such sweeping effects—not the technicalities of drafting; Private Members' Bills receive expert help on that—and not the sudden impact of sweeping measures. It has been made clear by the chief architects of the Bill and by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, again today, that a long period is to be expected

369
—much more than the five years sometimes suggested —for the Bill's implementation. That is important because there is a misconception among some of the disabled people in touch with me that enactment of the Bill would produce an immediate panacea. False hopes lead to dismay.
One difficulty is that the term "discrimination", in this context, means different things to different people. Definitions help but do not settle; for example, when debating in the 1960s and 1970s we had in mind intentional exclusion of disabled people. The owner of a restaurant or pub might arrange obstacles to keep out certain people who he thought would put off other customers. We were not aiming at an owner who, by chance, occupied a building built many years ago with difficult access. If improvements could be made they should be. We did not expect reconstruction at great expense.
To illustrate that in another way, when St. Paul's Cathedral was being built with all those steps, Sir Christopher Wren was not perpetrating discrimination against his disabled contemporaries. In more recent times, after the Chamber of the Commons was rebuilt between 1945 and 1950, its then Members and the Ministry of Works should not be accused of culpable discrimination because they were not thinking of wheelchairs. A guest of mine was the first person in a wheelchair able to reach the public gallery there in the mid-1960s, through the special removal of fixed objects by the Sergeant-at-Arms, who was most co-operative. Incidentally, that guest was Mrs. Du Boisson, the founder of DIG.
Particular forms of discrimination have been eliminated in the past 25 years by parliamentary pressure; for example, against deaf people driving. Absence of hearing used to disqualify from having a driving licence, though it was not relevant provided eyesight was in order. After that was changed deaf applicants continued to be refused to be considered as drivers in employment. Again, that was put right.
Within the term "discrimination" I was disquieted to learn that at least one disability organisation expects insurance to be part of this; and indeed it is mentioned in the Bill.
Insurance companies have to make assessments of risk, and charge premiums accordingly, as a result of long, wide and up-to-date experience. Sometimes the results are unexpected. For example, university students, from whom leaders of the future in all fields are expected to be found, are normally charged higher premiums for motor insurance than other people of the same age. When I first became a non-executive director of an insurance company I queried that. However, I was satisfied from the records and the figures, however illogical it might seem, that the policy was well founded.
In an interesting case, familiar to me because she is a relative, a student had to leave university because of mental illness. Immediately she left the university her motor premium was reduced by the insurance company. To have a mental disability was less risk than being an
370
ordinary student. That was the opposite of discrimination against disabled people and it is not what one would expect. But it is the assessment of risk. To interfere with assessments of risk in insurance would be a very serious step. I can foresee claims for compensation. Who would be responsible to pay them—Parliament; government?
The insurance industry, besides being involved in many people's pensions and financial affairs, is a major source of investment to industry and commerce. If governments started to rig risk assessments they might be tempted to do so for other causes too. I could give other reasons, with examples, why I had hoped that any comprehensive Bill, or series of Bills dealing with separate elements, would in the end come from the Government, as these are the kind of matters that really do need all the resources and the knowledge that are available to governments.
It may be pointed out that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 was a Private Member's Bill. It was drafted by the Government and was modest in its aims—and was none the worse for that. I was a sponsor of the Bill in another place. The Government offered it to the right honourable gentleman Mr. Alf Morris, when he came first in the annual ballot in November 1969. Mr. Morris immediately came to see me and explained the situation. I gladly agreed to be a sponsor. In a number of fields that Bill was to enable local authorities to act to help the disabled, without imposing obligations or financial burdens. One provision started the Orange Badge scheme.
As drafted, the Bill applied only to England and Wales. I moved amendments at the appropriate stage, drafted by the Government, during its passage in the other place to extend parts of it to Scotland. Two years later, when I was Secretary of State for Scotland, I made further amendments to complete that extension. I am almost as unhappy when Scotland is overlooked as when disabled people are overlooked. When the general election was announced in May 1970 the Conservative Opposition co-operated to ensure that the Bill was enacted and did not fall, like other uncompleted Bills, upon dissolution. The 1970 Act was a milestone but it was also a government drafted and assisted Private Member's Bill on straightforward subjects and without complications. That is not like today's Bill.
An example which we should all, including the Government, be following closely is the Americans with their Disabilities Act—ADA—passed four years ago. This is based on reaching "reasonable accommodations" and aims to avoid time-wasting and expensive litigation in the courts. A commission mediates where needed. The intention is that changes and adaptations be made which are not excessive burdens on owners, employers and businesses. If it is applied with good sense, as I hope, and found to work, it will be a helpful guide for us.
A very significant part of the new American system is that their tax laws have been amended to introduce tax concessions for costs of compliance with ADA. Again, that is an area in Britain where the Government have to be involved. Tax concessions certainly would accelerate changes and adaptations and I would myself be in favour of them.

371
Any legislation must take into account the many different forms of disability. At one extreme there is someone completely paralysed, except for one finger, and unable to speak. Depending on circumstances, a lot can be done to improve his life. At the other extreme is someone whose disability is only the loss of one finger. There are many categories and combinations in between and it is difficult to generalise.
It has been inappropriate, in relation to this Bill, to brandish the figure of 6.5 million disabled. That is one-eighth of the population of the United Kingdom. I deplore the misleading impression it gives. It includes every small disability; and about three-quarters are elderly who were able-bodied during their working lives. The man and woman in the street knows very well that one-eighth of the people in their areas are not in wheelchairs, or similar situations of handicap. The wheelchair figure is, in fact, available from government sources and RADAR. We know that about 500,000 are in long-term disabled condition in wheelchairs, including the elderly. That is one-thirteenth of 6.5 million, though there are, of course, others with serious handicaps—probably another 500,000. It is a disservice to the cause of disabled people to associate the figure with this Bill especially when only about 1.3 per cent. of the working population are registering for the 3 per cent. quota scheme for employment.
As with previous Bills of this kind, I support its purposes. I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Renton, who cannot be here this evening, to say that he does also, but that he has amendments to propose at later stages. Because the Bill attempts to cover so much ground, and can be interpreted in different ways, I recognise that there are difficulties for a government. I would prefer government measures. I hope that we can hear more about the Government's proposals today. It is a sad paradox that the government of the day should be made to look the villain in the piece, when a great deal has in practice been done during the past 14 years to improve the daily life and independence of disabled people.
I suggest to my friends in all parts of the House, who have campaigned with me over the years, that we must be realistic. We must assess what it is possible to achieve, and damp down exaggerated expectations outside Parliament. Steady progress should be our aim.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the hour is late and there are many noble Lords wishing to speak. I shall therefore be concise. At a time when there is too much unnecessary, lengthy and indigestible legislation, I am glad to have the chance to voice my support for this necessary and readily digestible measure and my support for that indefatigable, unremitting campaigner for the disabled, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke.
I would like briefly to explain my credentials for doing so because I believe that they are even older than those of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has just made such a compelling speech. For a decade from 1963 I was myself a campaigner for legislation to forbid discrimination on grounds of colour, race, religion or gender. For two years between 1974 and
372
1976, I was privileged to work for my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead at the Home Office as special adviser on what became the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976—comprehensive legislation with effective remedies.
I well recall that when I was campaigning for effective race relations legislation in the 1960s one of the most steadfast and courageous supporters on the Conservative Opposition Benches was a young man by the name of Nicholas Scott, with whom I worked closely. There were very few Conservatives in those far off days in favour of anti-discrimination legislation of any kind. I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Scott for what he then did. He is of course now the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, with the miserable job of voicing support for effective measures to tackle discrimination on grounds of physical or mental disability while at the same time having to stifle in another place this very Bill, using what I can only describe as unacceptable tactics. If I may say so, his daughter, who has worked so skilfully and bravely for this measure, is a chip off the young block—that is, off the young Mr. Scott of 30 years ago. I hope that she and her colleagues will soon be rewarded with the enactment of legislation along the lines of this Bill, even though I suspect that they may have to wait until a change of government after the next election for something concrete and effective.
The arguments in favour of this kind of legislation were memorably expressed a quarter of a century ago by the Race Relations Board in its first annual report under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the five arguments that it summarised in favour of the legislation. They are as valid today as they were in 1967. The board stated:

"1. A law is an unequivocal declaration of public policy.

2. A law gives support to those who do not wish to discriminate, but who feel compelled to do so by social pressure.

3. A law gives protection and redress to minority groups.

4. A law thus provides for the peaceful and orderly adjustment of grievances and the release of tensions.

5. A law reduces prejudice by discouraging the behaviour in which prejudice finds expression".

That can be applied as much to legislation forbidding discrimination against disabled people as to legislation against racial discrimination, sex discrimination or religious discrimination. Each involves the use of the civil law to create a tort of unjustifiable discrimination and to provide effective legal remedies for victims.
The problems of unfair discrimination against disabled people are a serious source of real injustice and indignity and a waste of personal talent and skill. The injustice is just as grave. Women do not chose their gender; members of ethnic minorities do not chose their ethnicity. The same applies to people with a mental or physical disability. Where the disability is not relevant to the job or the benefit in question and is therefore not a justifiable ground for unequal treatment, it is wrong that a person should be in a position to discriminate freely without any legal sanctions. It is unacceptable that people who are discriminated against have no effective remedy. Such discrimination is unacceptable

373
not only in employment but in housing and in the provision of goods, services and facilities or in any other such benefit.
As I read it, the Bill would not require any unacceptable reverse discrimination but simply equality of opportunity and treatment without unjustifiable discrimination. Those concepts are well understood as a result of decades of experience of our existing legislation. It is not only simple justice that cries out for the Bill; the importance of the Bill is reinforced by the international obligations imposed on the United Kingdom by the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and by the European Convention on Human Rights. I would be grateful if the noble Viscount could deal specifically with that point in his reply. It is one that I raised briefly some weeks ago in this House.
Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights creates a powerful guarantee of equality of treatment without unfair discrimination. It has been given a powerful interpretation by the UN Human Rights Committee as a free-standing guarantee. Article 2 of the covenant provides:
"Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps … to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant".
The third paragraph of Article 2 states:
"Each State Party … undertakes … to ensure that any person whose rights of freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy".
The United Kingdom, through the Government, will be obliged to explain in its next periodic report to the Human Rights Committee in August why it has not legislated on the lines of this Bill. I am confident that the debate in the House will be drawn to the attention of the Human Rights Committee and that the Government will face difficult questions on the subject from the committee in its public session next spring. In my view, simple justice and international human rights law require the Government to introduce effective measures to deal with this serious social mischief that afflicts an extremely vulnerable minority. We hope to hear something positive and concrete about the Government's intentions when the Minister speaks in reply to the debate. Surely we can expect something more tangible and real than a promise of yet further consultation or criticism of the drafting of the Bill.
The best reason for legislation of this kind was summed up some years ago by Archbishop William Temple. I apologise for using this example a second time in this House but it appears to me to be apt in the context of the Bill. He said that when he travelled on the Underground he always intended to buy a railway ticket but the fact that there was a ticket collector at the other end just clinched it. I am sure that in relation to this Bill the Government intend there to be no discrimination against the disabled but enacting it would just clinch it.
10.2 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I give my wholehearted support to the Bill comprehensively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. It is most appropriate that he should introduce it and that he should be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Cray. The description by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, of the early history of attempted legislation for disabled people I found fascinating. I well remember taking part in discussion of his Bill in this House in 1983.I shall try not to repeat my two Second Reading speeches of two years ago when very similar Bills were introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, one of which the noble Baroness steered so skilfully through the House.
My noble friend Lady Masham is extremely sorry not to be here today to support the Bill. She has gone home, since her husband, her noble kinsman Lord Swinton, has had to go back into hospital. I hope that he will make a full and speedy recovery.
Discrimination exists, and all of us want to stop it. That is not at issue. Indeed, the best quotes acknowledging and deploring discrimination have come from the Minister for disabled people, Nicholas Scott. The question is how to stop discrimination. The Government still advocate education and persuasion and carefully targeted legislation. Many of the measures are very welcome and necessary: for example, the Education Act 1993 and its code of practice, the building regulations, and so on. But carefully targeted legislation inevitably leaves gaps for people to fall into. I am convinced, as are ever-increasing numbers of people, disabled or otherwise, that comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation is necessary to provide a seamless backcloth to carefully targeted legislation, to set a standard of behaviour towards people with disabilities, to induce the persistent offender to comply when education and persuasion fail, and to give a fairer deal to providers as well as consumers. To explain that I should like to quote from Sir Peter Large's address on 30th September 1992 when he received the Harding Award:
"In my opinion, one of the most telling arguments in favour of anti-discrimination legislation is that of 'the level playing field'. If a cost or effort is required to treat disabled people properly, as is and will be the case in many instances, it would be fairer for everyone to shoulder the burden. In the absence of legislation, those of ill will gain advantage over those who put themselves out to help disabled people".
But is this the right Bill for the job? I believe that it is and that worries are based on misunderstandings about the costs involved and on what is meant by discrimination. I gather that the decision to stop the Bill at Report stage in another place was taken two days after the compliance cost assessment was published. That is a great pity because the assessment is seriously flawed. I am sure that other noble Lords will go into the details but I should like to give a couple of rather daft examples.
First, while it is asserted that it is unclear whether the Bill would permit lower pay for lower productivity, nevertheless it is estimated that £63 million will be needed to subsidise pay in the private sector and £16.3 million will be needed in the public sector. In fact, the

375
Bill does not require equal pay for unequal productivity. Secondly, no less than £568.8 million is said to be required to replace all current telephone boxes to make them wheelchair accessible. I hardly think that it would qualify as "reasonable" to expect those measures.
The assessment takes no account of the benefits gained by legislation. In an article in the Sunday Times on 12th June 1994, Alf Morris wrote of the estimate by Touche Ross of the loss in business of £22 billion to Britain's travel industry due solely to lack of access to disabled people.
I turn now to unreasonable discrimination, which the Bill seeks to ban and to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred. Let us take employment. An employer would be discriminating against a disabled person if he failed to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental limitations of a qualified person with a disability and refused him employment on the grounds of the disability. The reasonable accommodation includes providing access to premises. But "reasonable" is tested against factors which include the cost of making available the accommodation, the nature of the workplace, the overall financial resources of the employer and whatever grants may be available.
In relation to the provision of goods, facilities and services, there would be discrimination if the provider refused to modify rules, policies or practices where it was practicable and safe to do so and where provision was refused on the grounds of disability. The reasonableness of any modification would depend on whether it involved undue hardship and again the latter would be tested against such factors as the cost and the overall financial resources of the provider of the goods, facilities or services.
Perhaps I may give a short example of how the Bill would help disabled people. A silver waiter with epilepsy was employed aboard a large cruise liner. His form of epilepsy was completely controlled by drugs and he had had no attacks day or night for well over five years. He held a driving licence. One day at sea his so-called friends threw his pills overboard as a joke. He had an epileptic attack and was eventually fired. He had improperly stated on his application form that he did not have epilepsy and the company had a policy not to employ anyone with epilepsy. If the company had not had that policy, the man could have obtained replacement pills from a well-stocked pharmacy on board the liner. In that case, modification would have involved ending the policy of not employing people with epilepsy and reasonable accommodation would have consisted of making sure that the pharmacy aboard ship kept the requisite pills.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned the assessment of risk. As I understand it, under the Bill it would not be that one should not consider risk when making an assessment but that one should merely make sure that it is a realistic assessment of the risk involved and not based on any misconception of the disability.
Lord Campbell of Croy: That should be the situation now.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Yes, but I think that there are misconceptions.
376
The Bill will not solve all the problems but it would set the standards for proper behaviour towards people with disabilities and ensure a fairer deal for those who complied with that standard.
In reply to a Starred Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, the Minister said:
"While the Government support the aims of the Bill, we do not support it as drafted".—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1811.]
The Minister for disabled people has said that the Bill is poorly drafted. I do not believe that that was ever said in relation to the two similar Bills introduced to the House two years ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. When the noble Viscount replies, I hope that he will expand upon that and give some examples. I have given the Minister notice of that question because I believe it would be extremely helpful to know where the Government see difficulties in relation to the drafting. I hope that we can then make positive progress towards making the Bill a workable measure which is acceptable to the Government and enabling people with disabilities to live and operate effectively, untrammelled by barriers which need not, or should not, exist.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Ashley for giving the House the chance to take this important Bill through all its stages—a chance that we know was denied to another place by the Government's manipulation of parliamentary procedure. As is the convention with a Private Member's Bill, when I speak from this Dispatch Box I give my personal view. However, I should say that the Bill in its aims and objectives reflects the policy of the Labour Party. We made it clear that if we had won the last election a Bill of this nature, or one very much like it, would have been introduced during the course of this Parliament.
I am not the first speaker to say that we have been here before. The arguments may not be new, but they become ever stronger with the passage of time. Enough has been said about what went on in another place recently. However, I must make one comment which relates to a very surprising remark made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, only last week in response to a supplementary question by my noble friend Lady Hollis (at col. 1813 of Hansard on 16th June). The noble Viscount said that he did not agree with my noble friend that the activities in the other place had "shamed the parliamentary process". If a personal apology by the Minister concerned and an unprecedented rebuke by the Speaker in the other place to the Back-Bencher who wrecked the Bill at the behest of the Government do not reflect a shaming of the parliamentary process, I do not know what does.
I believe that we have now reached a very important point in the development of the Government's thinking and attitude on the matter. Perhaps I may refer to the Second Reading of a Bill that was introduced by my noble friend Lady Lockwood on 15th June 1992. The argument by the Minister concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was that,
"we in the Government did not think that this Bill, or rather its identical twin and predessessor"—

377
the one introduced earlier that year—
"was necessary".
He went on to say that,
"that Bill was not necessary and was not necessarily the right way forward at that time. That is still our view".
Thereafter, in answer to a right reverend Prelate who had asked whether we should follow,
"the educational line or the line of legislation",
the Minister said:
"I beg to dispute his conclusions. Our view is that education is the better line".—[Official Report, 15/6792; cols. 102–3.]
That was two years ago when education and persuasion were the suggested policy of the Government, not legislation. The "in" words at that time, as noble Lords will remember, were "benevolent neutrality".
I should like to contrast the latter with the remarks made by Mr. Nicholas Scott, the Minister for Disabled People, who was interviewed on the "Link" programme shown only last Sunday on television. I shall quote from the transcript of that programme because I believe it to be significant. When interviewed, Mr. Scott said:
"I would expect that by towards the end of this year we'd be in a position to see the results of the consultative process becoming clear and the Government making up its mind then about the way forward, possibly, probably I would say, involving legislation of one sort or another".
In response the interviewer, Mr. Kevin Mulhern, asked:
"And so, provided there isn't an election earlier than people think, and we run the full length of this Parliament, there could be some form of legislation in the lifetime of the current Parliament?".
Mr. Scott replied:
"I'd be very surprised if we didn't have such legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament, if it runs anything like its full course".
Therefore, can the Minister say whether the Government now accept what many of us have been arguing for years; namely, that education and persuasion are not enough and legislation is necessary if disabled people are to have the same rights as the rest of society? If that is the case and the Government accept the need for legislation, can the Minister tell us what is wrong with the Bill now before the House? Why are the Government so opposed to this Bill if the Minister concerned has already admitted on television—and, indeed, in another place—that there is now a need for legislation? That is a change of heart by the Government which is welcome. Therefore, can the Minister clearly explain to the House what is wrong with the current Bill?
Other speakers will no doubt deal with other aspects of the Bill. However, I should like just to say a few words about the absurd figure of £17 billion which was quoted by the Government, and to which reference has already been made, as being the possible cost of implementing the Bill. An excellent analysis has been carried out by RADAR, the details of which I shall not go into, which completely exposes the fallacies which lie behind that figure of £17 billion. I will say this. It debases the argument and insults disabled people to produce a completely fallacious figure, reveal it on the day before Report stage in another place and then rely on that figure as the main argument for rejecting the Bill. Whose figure was the £17 billion anyway? Did the
378
Government actually do the detailed calculations, or did they rely on estimates and assumptions produced by the CBI and the Institute of Directors?
The American experience with the American Disabilities Act —the ADA—is now becoming clearer. It is interesting to note what has happened there. Mr. Robert Mather has already been referred to. He is a lawyer in the Justice Department in America and he is himself disabled. In the "Link" television programme that I referred to earlier he said in relation to businesses in America and in response to a question about the effect of the Bill on cost:
"Most of the businesses have recognised that they do have to take actions and those actions have not resulted in burdens or undue hardships and, after having several years experience with the ADA we have found that with the proper information that companies have been able to … partake in their responsibilities. And they have found that actually the ADA is pro-business".
Mention of the ADA raises an interesting point. As I understand it, American companies operating in this country will have to meet the requirements of the ADA. If they do not, they will be discriminating against their disabled employees by preventing them accepting a move to their English operation in the course of their career. They will have to provide the access, and the other provisions in the ADA, if they are to bring their employees over to work in their English operation. It will be a supreme irony, and a fitting commentary on the Government's attitude, if McDonald's and Coca-Cola happily do what the Government resolutely refuse to do.
We know that discrimination against disability has its roots in our social culture but finds its expression in the economic and physical disadvantage which is experienced by disabled people. A complex mixture of religious, psychological, cultural and educational factors provide the seedbed for discrimination. We all know that even in today's rather more enlightened society there are still many instances of insensitivity and downright ignorance. This Bill may not be perfect but it is certainly better than the vacuum that now exists. As has been said many times, if the Government are not satisfied with the drafting it can be amended. I repeat the request made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth)—we have heard this a number of times—what is wrong with the drafting? Will the Minister please tell us so that we can seek amendments to meet the weaknesses that the Government say they have discovered?
The Bill is flexible. It gives the Government the power, through codes of practice and regulations, to control the pace and extent of the changes which are needed. However, we know that the Government are opposed to the Bill. They have produced spurious figures to justify their opposition. The Government have made a fool of themselves in another place by the manner of their opposition, and they have succeeded in uniting disabled people in their detestation of the Government's actions. But this House has the opportunity now to take the Bill through its various stages and in so doing expose the manifest weakness of the Government's case against it.
The first Motion that I ever moved in your Lordships' House was to draw attention to the needs and problems of people with disabilities. In that debate I coined the

379
phrase the "disabled divide" to describe the gulf which exists in expectation and achievement between people with disabilities and the rest of society. It really is time that we began to bridge that divide and this Bill is an excellent start for that process.
10.18 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the fact that so many noble Lords on both sides of the House have spoken, or intend to speak, in the debate today is yet further evidence, if such evidence be needed, of the strong views held on this important issue. Indeed many in this House have devoted much of their working lives to assisting disabled people, including the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, who has moved this Bill and who has spoken so eloquently and movingly today.
I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House shares the same feelings on this issue. We all want disabled people to be able to share as far as possible in the every-day activities that we all enjoy. Most of us have only to look back a comparatively few years to remind ourselves of the limits and constraints which disabled people had to endure. We should pay tribute to the International Year of Disabled People in 1981 which highlighted the problems faced by many people with disabilities.
In this country the work of assisting disabled people in their every-day lives through the introduction of practical, focused measures has continued over many months and years. I am sure that many people will recognise that few have done more to assist that work than my right honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People.
The Bill which we discuss today should be considered in the context of the ongoing work to reduce discrimination against disabled people and to help them participate fully in every-day life. The launch only this month of the Action for Work initiative is typical of the way in which disabled people have been helped through a series of measures, each one building on that which preceded it. Through the scheme, organised under the auspices of the Department of Employment, unemployed, employed and self-employed people with disabilities are able to apply for assistance of up to £21,000 over five years—practical help which will enable them to enter or to remain in employment. The scheme is flexible enough to provide for the many and varied requirements of the disabled people themselves.
Similarly, over the past decade or so steps have been taken in a wide range of areas promoting the needs of people with disabilities in fields such as community care, education, transport, telecommunications, social security and access to many buildings.
However, clearly further work needs to be done, and on that we all agree. Most of us also agree that all the work cannot be done at once. The promoters of the Private Member's Bill on the civil rights of disabled people have themselves claimed that their proposals could be phased in over a number of years.
Given that degree of consensus on the way forward, I hope that the House will also agree that any measures which it helps to place on the statute book should be considered carefully and fully and should take into
380
account the views held quite legitimately by a wide range of organisations which have an interest in legislation in this area.
Therefore, I welcome the Government's plans to consult widely within the next six months on a range of measures to combat discrimination in important areas such as employment, access to goods and services and the impact of building regulations.
We can look forward to the future with enthusiasm and confidence. Much can be learned from consultation so that the most helpful suggestions can be incorporated. I believe that employers understand the obligations they share with all of us to assist disabled people in their every-day lives. Surely measures which have the support of the whole House and a wide cross-section of organisations outside the House are far more likely to have the positive impact which we all seek.
I urge the promoters and sponsors of the Bill to acknowledge that their aim of reducing and eventually eliminating discrimination against disabled people has the full and genuine support of all sides of the House. I also urge all those with an interest in this area to use the opportunity of the forthcoming consultation process to put their views across. In that way they can have a permanent and beneficial effect on the lives of many thousands of disabled people in this country.
10.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, in adding to the thanks of others to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for his initiative in bringing this Bill before your Lordships' House I express the hope that it will have the full support of your Lordships.
My concern is not so much with the detail of the legislation before us as with the need for legislation to protect the rights of more than six million people who are recognised as disabled in terms of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, reminded your Lordships' House yesterday that there is not one of us who does not suffer from some kind of disability even though it may not limit any of our major life activities. I make the point not to demean those who are, properly speaking, disabled or to trivialise the debate. It underlines the fact that the human race consists of a wonderful variety of people with a rich mixture of differing gifts and abilities. Some people have patently more than others, sometimes infuriatingly and unfairly so. But none lacks altogether, and none is so disabled as to have nothing to contribute, always uniquely, to the whole.
A healthy and vibrant community recognises that and seeks to encourage every single member to play his or her part, no matter how small or diminished that may be. Moreover, most of us know instinctively the truth of what the major religions teach: that each and every one of us is of equal value before God regardless of nationality, gender, race, religion or abilities.
It is a sad reflection on this country therefore, that after centuries of Christian civilisation, and after many previous attempts to legislate, those who are disabled are three times more likely to be unemployed than others; that wholly suitable housing for disabled people is in short supply; and that most of Britain's transport

381
and public buildings still present the disabled with major problems of access. That means that people with disabilities begin from and live with enormous disadvantages and have to make a double effort if they are to catch up with the rest of us. For them there is not yet a level playing field. Their disadvantage is reinforced by the attitude of others who treat them as less than fully human. That may be an understandable attitude caused by a common dread of being disabled oneself. Yet if people are to be helped to overcome such anxiety, then every means must be used, including legislation, to do away with the negative discrimination which affects the disabled and which others fear in respect of their own disability.
Thus, the whole of our society is impoverished for as long as even one group, and this group in particular, suffers from unjust disadvantages. Let us remember John Donne's lines about the death of one man being a diminishment of us all. In rectifying the situation, therefore, we shall enrich not only the disabled but the able bodied as well.
We recognise and appreciate the Herculean labours of many people and of organisations as well as governments who through the years have worked to better the lot of people with disadvantages. We salute countless relatives, friends and carers who have, often sacrificially, looked after disabled people. There will always be the need for their love and their efforts. But in recent times, and especially perhaps since World War II, we have increasingly recognised the necessity for a greater partnership and collaboration between those in need and those who wish to help. It is no longer acceptable to regard those with disabilities as objects of pity, charity and paternalism; and that not only because the one who is disadvantaged has the right to be treated as fully human but also because of a wrong kind of dominance which can be exercised by the benefactor. Somewhere C. S. Lewis illustrates that when he remarks, "She was a do-gooder and you could tell her victims by their haunted looks".
It is all too easy for us to seek to boost our own ego and to meet our own need for a role by making others dependent upon our goodness. So we may warm to the scriptural words that it is more blessed to give than to receive, but we often fail to recognise that it is actually quite difficult for most people, including ourselves, to receive for fear of being demeaned and beholden. So, in the story of the foot washing in the New Testament, the Apostle Peter naturally protests at being the object of his own Master's charity.
Yet a healthy relationship between people involves the humility to receive as well as the generosity to give —and disabled people have so much to give when they are allowed and encouraged to do so. For them, the problem is not medical or the problem of an individual so much as one of relationships with others and with their environment.
But why legislate? Why not leave it to the steady growth of good will and progressive recognition of the needs of the disabled in this country? Will not continuing education and propaganda be a better way than the complexities of legislation and the costs of its
382
implementation? Unfortunately, as has already been pointed out, the educational process is both difficult and slow. It is too slow for the many, many disabled people who could still face tens of years of continuing discrimination without the law to undergird the good will of this nation—a good will which is undoubted and widespread.
So I believe that this is a good time to take advantage of that public support and to appeal to Her Majesty's Government to enact legislation which is every bit as significant for the development of a just society as the civil rights legislation relating to women and ethnic minorities.
I know that cost, yet again, is given as a reason for opposing it, but not only is the American experience since 1990 that their legislation is cost effective, as we have already heard, but, much more importantly, we are concerned with justice for millions of people in this land. The happiness and fulfilment of a human being cannot properly be measured in terms of pounds and pennies.
So I hope that the Government's declared commitment to,
"eliminating discrimination against disabled people"
will mean more than the consultation process announced by Nicholas Scott, welcome though that will be; and that those who are disabled will have a charter of rights, in these days of charters, and so some redress against being treated unjustly. A positive reply from the noble Viscount this evening would go a long way towards allaying the widespread anger which followed the insulting and underhand way in which the Bill was recently talked out in another place.
The Churches are ready to play their part and since 1987 Church Action on Disability has been seeking to inform, educate and persuade people of the need for action and changes in attitudes. Obviously, there is some way to go and, alas, the experience of a disabled worshipper reflects the failings, I suggest, not only of the Church but also of the state. She writes:
"I went to a Taizé-style service tonight and sitting there in the silence a picture came to me. It was of Christ crucified lying as the ramp to get me into church while the PCC discussed, unseeing in the background, whether they could afford it".
I beg to support the Bill.
10.34 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, it is very appropriate that my noble friend Lord Ashley should introduce this Bill in this House this evening. My noble friend has long been a leading figure in the all-party parliamentary group for the disabled. We are very grateful to him.
Many people are establishing their credentials. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has indicated his long record on behalf of disabled people in concert with others in another place. My right honourable friend, Alf Morris, MP, who was earlier sitting on the steps of the Throne, is rightly proud of his 1970 disabled persons Act.
My own credentials are that for eight years I administered an Act similar in content to this Bill which dealt with sex discrimination. As has been indicated in the debate, I also piloted a similar Bill through this

383
House two years ago. At that time I received the support of the majority of your Lordships. I am sure that this evening that same support will be given to my noble friend. This House has not only a deep sympathy for people who suffer from some disability; it also has a deep understanding of their needs.
On the previous occasion we debated a disabled persons Bill in 1992, the Government pleaded benevolent neutrality. That stance is not available to them this evening after the behaviour of their Minister in another place and after the exchange at Question Time in this House last week.
The Government claim that their approach is through legislation targeted at specific problems. By providing for a phased-in, progressive approach, this Bill covers that same approach. What the Bill does, however—and this is the most important factor—is give disabled people the right to measure the treatment they receive by the treatment that a non-disabled person would receive in the same circumstances. It defines the areas in which those comparisons can be made, and it gives the disabled person a right to seek redress through tribunals or courts.
However, the Bill enters a caveat, and one for which the Government should be grateful. It is the caveat of "reasonableness", which means that if it would be out of all proportion with the end result to expect a modification to rules, practices, policies or physical barriers to take place, then that test of reasonableness would override the case.
The Government claim that it would cost more than £17 billion to implement the Bill. Many noble Lords have dealt with that problem. If that is the true measure of the real discrimination against disabled people, then the sooner we begin to remedy that discrimination the better. But, of course, as has been said, it will not cost that amount.
We must ask: what will it cost the Government to pursue their alternative policy to equality? They are rather coy about that, and the Minister refused to give any information last week when the matter was raised. One suspects that it is in the area where separate legislation, or amending legislation, would be required that the real costs are to be found. By their own admission the Government are indicating that in the long run such expenditure will be necessary.
Why do we need a civil rights Bill for disabled persons? It is needed, I suggest, for the following reasons. First, disabled people, like the rest of us, should have the right to contribute fully to the community, whether at work or at play, in the light of their abilities, and to enjoy the benefits of such a contribution.
Secondly, discrimination is often hidden in our procedures and provisions. It is necessary to be able to establish how arrangements, which on the surface appear to be fair all round, can impact adversely on disabled people. Thirdly, discrimination is often carried out thoughtlessly, without regard to the needs and the abilities of disabled people; or, worse still, it is based on ignorance and prejudice, leading to cruel harassment, as the report Unequal Opportunities, published earlier this year by the CAB, demonstrated. Fourthly, it provides a
384
level playing field for those employers and organisations making the necessary changes to their arrangements in order to employ or to serve those with a disability. In this very competitive society, disabled people must not be sidelined while others race- to meet targets. Competition must not override the needs of disabled people.
Fifthly, to expose such discriminatory behaviour, individuals need a channel through which they can seek redress or compensation. Sixthly and lastly, there should be a body, such as the proposed disability rights commission, which could help both to enforce, the law and to establish norms and good practice in the way we carry out our business and the provision of services. We have achieved that through legislation in the fields of race discrimination and of sex discrimination. We need now to do it in the field of discrimination against disabled people.
10.41 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I am chairman of Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for Disabled People, which is in the business of training disabled people for jobs and getting them employed. If I thought that the Bill would help in that object, I should be in favour of it. But I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that I do not believe that it does.
The process of interviewing anyone for a job is an exercise in discrimination. We all have to practise discrimination in life, not only in this field. If I were to describe the noble Lord as lacking discrimination, he would rightly take it as an uncomplimentary remark. Discrimination is a deeply personal matter, and I am not sure that the law has a place in it. In practice, employers will continue to exercise discrimination in their employment of people. If they are prejudiced against employing people with disabilities—which, regrettably, many are—it is my belief that the Bill will not alter that attitude. What it will achieve is a change in the procedures adopted by employers, designed to steer clear of the penalties the Bill imposes.
The Queen Elizabeth's foundation has a high rate of employment of its students, currently running at around 50 per cent. That compares favourably with a rate of 25 per cent. for those training the able bodied. People with disabilities make very good employees in jobs for which they are suited and trained. One of the reasons, I believe, is that they are more strongly motivated than their able bodied fellows because they value more highly the opportunity to work and be financially independent than do the able bodied, who regard it as a right.
Why then, one might ask, are people prejudiced against employing the disabled? I believe that the answer lies to a great extent in the employment protection measures now in force. Those measures can place a considerable cost on employers when an employee has a bad record of absenteeism through sickness. It is not unnatural in a competitive market for jobs, where there is plenty of choice, for an employer to safeguard himself against that problem by employing an able-bodied candidate, however wrong he might be in making that decision.

385
I do not propose that we should forget about the problem and do nothing. But I would prefer the Government to start by examining the employment regulations to see what more can be done to make it easier for employers to employ people with disabilities rather than impose a law against discrimination which I believe would be largely ineffective. I was encouraged, coming in at the end of the last debate, to hear my noble friend Lord Henley say, it seemed, that he had the rights of unemployed people, who include many disabled, in mind in that respect.
I have a further reason for not liking the Bill. Much has been made of the enormous costs it would impose. I have no view on the size of the figure; I am not qualified to assess it. However, there will be a cost. My theory is that a statutory impost on businesses in the name of those with disabilities will discourage the substantial voluntary contributions which they make towards financing the works of my foundation and others in the field who are, I believe, achieving more for the employment and welfare of disabled people than will be achieved by the Bill.
10.46 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, first perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, that the Bill is not concerned solely with employment; discrimination creeps insidiously into every walk of life of disabled people, and I trust that after he has heard the arguments put forward this evening he will perhaps change his mind.
It may be noticed that the events surrounding the career of this pheonix-like Bill in another place were characterised in the press as "Another Whitehall farce". I read that particular headline with a certain distaste. The Whitehall farce that I remember from my days in the other "other place", at the far end of Whitehall, was designed to be funny and to give people pleasure. I doubt that the way the equal treatment Bill has run into the buffers of another place was intended to be funny and I am sure that it gave very few people any pleasure.
However, that is over and done with. I do not want to waste your Lordships' time with further discussion on school rules and family differences. I want to take up the more serious contributions to the recent debate. Sooner or later—and I strongly suspect sooner (God help us if we have to wait for a further 26 years)—there will be an Act of Parliament according equal treatment to millions of disabled people—I shall not try and calculate the exact number—and double the number of disabled people if we include members of their families, who at present suffer inequality with them. In my view it must come from a government Bill. It is not enough for the Government to stand aside and let someone else's Bill get through. Something this important and with the extended history of this measure should have government financial backing, government time and government-guided implementation; nothing else will do.
Looking forward to that eventual Act of Parliament and to the further discussions that will precede it, I want to say things which may reflect my anger with some of
386
the opponents of the Bill but are designed to tackle their objections. Some of the things I want to say may not be wholly music to the ears of some of the Bill's supporters. I shared my thoughts with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and he did not take offence—I commit him no further than that.
First, it has been suggested that this Bill is a hot air balloon of political correctness; an attempt to give people who reject the label of disability a right, on the basis of that same label, to other people's money. That view is seen in the wilder flights of criticism and some of the wilder flights of imagination that have gone into the cost appraisal. On that view the Bill is about rebuilding or closing down the corner shop with two steps to negotiate and hardly space to walk between the crowded shelves because it does not admit a disabled person on a spinal carriage; or it is about pillorying the university maths department which denies an academic appointment to the candidate with severe learning disability.
With that view of the Bill goes the belief that once disabled people can assert rights—rights which in our society may be denied to people without disability—we can say goodbye to charity and compassion. People who argue in that fashion are not a little aided and abetted by those who say that charity or compassion are dirty words and outmoded concepts. Much as I hope that, if the day comes when I need to use a wheelchair, I shall be able to get into the village shop in my wheelchair rather than having to have someone bring my shopping out to me, I want the village shop to survive. I would not want the shop closed because I could not get into it.
To turn aside from what too easily becomes a debate about wheelchair access, there are some people with a learning disability who are not at their best in the confined space of a small shop. I am not asserting their right to demolish the display each time they visit.
So from my perspective there is such a thing as disablement which stems from physical or mental impairment and which will exist however much we reform society and reconstruct our physical environ-ment. My daughter has a learning disability—a mental handicap—and all the community care in the world will not change that. I am reminded of that fact when she starts vocalising very loudly at five o' clock on a Sunday morning on one of her weekend visits to our house.
Perhaps this Bill should mention fair treatment or equal treatment rather than civil rights, because it does not set out to mask real disability by expensive rights. It sets out to ensure that people who are already disabled are not additionally handicapped by the wholly unfair way we often treat them. We hear all too often of children and adults who can be seen to have a learning disability being excluded from public swimming pools on the grounds that they cannot swim—when in fact they can swim, and swim very well.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made reference to insurance. At Mencap we actually had to establish our own insurance service because of the difficulty people with learning disability experienced in obtaining insurance cover. We have come across countless cases of insurance being refused because of underwriters' wholly erroneous assumptions that

387
disability automatically implies additional risk. Families wishing to take their children to Disneyland are refused travel insurance for their child with learning disability, and on, and on.
Because prejudice is real, and because real but wholly unnecessary barriers have been erected against disabled people, we need legislation which in the shorter term will change behaviour, in the longer term will change attitudes and in the very long term will change society and the physical environment. But because disability is real we shall always need charity and compassion—or, if your Lordships prefer the G.K. Chesterton word, "courtesy"—as part of the rich network of relationships between those who are more and those who are less disabled.
Secondly, there is the question of cost. I am speaking to a Bill which has a fairly open-ended timetable and which embodies the concept of reasonableness. The very large estimates of cost, as has already been said, seem to assume implementation within a fairly tightly defined timescale and pay rather limited regard to the concept of reasonableness. I have to say, speaking for Mencap, that a lot of the prejudicial behaviour directed unfairly against people with learning disabilities could be legislated against without it costing anyone a penny of either capital or revenue. Why should it be legitimate to deny someone a job dealing with the public or a holiday in a hotel because someone else decides they do not like that person's appearance? How would the Palace of Westminster function, and who would it lose, if any MP could raise the cry not "I spy strangers" but "I spy someone who looks different", that person then being excluded?
Where buildings or vehicles have to be modified or differently built, there may indeed be costs. I am aware that: detailed work is being done on the potential real costs of the Bill in its current form to set beside the rather more fanciful costs in the compliance cost assessment. For the moment, I want to make only two points. One is that for me the Bill is a matter of deciding what sort of society and environment we want and taking the first steps in that direction. You get from the objectionable to the desirable not by a single stride but through taking in succession the feasible, the unlikely and the not hitherto thought possible. Miracles take a little longer. How many of today's social and architectural conventions were once thought merely impossible, or the end of Western civilisation?
My other point is to draw to your Lordships' attention a recent publication Cross-Sector Benefits of Accessible Public Transport by Andrew Fowkes, Philip Oxley and Bryan Heiser. It was published with the support of that admirable body, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The title is perhaps not going to make this slender volume the year's most popular paperback, but the authors do, in some considerable detail, for transport what can also be done for buildings. That is, to show that once you have a realistic cost for change to help disabled people, you need to do a different set of sums to show the cost benefits of making things accessible. Public sector cost accounting still seems to be stuck too often in the rut of identifying costs without ever acknowledging offsetting benefits.
388
With some trepidation, I mention very briefly my last point. I am conscious that the government proposals for consultation on the way ahead include what in the Bill is called the Disability Rights Commission. I am also conscious that the commission idea has been as attractive to successive governments as raw steak is to a vegetarian. But quite why quangos or agencies should be better than government departments and private bodies better than quangos I am not entirely clear. However, the vision of a new and expensive body identifying problems where none exists and converting natural fairness into burdensome bureaucracy seems very real to some critics of the Bill.
I can only say that I am sure most of us want fairness without bureaucracy. At the same time we do not want justice to be done on paper but then left undone in practice because there is no means of enforcing it. But if someone can come up with a proposal for an ombudsman or a steering committee, or any other means of ensuring that fairness moves off the printed page and into people's daily lives, there might be other ways of achieving the same results.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He mentioned a commission. I can tell him that 26 years ago in my first Bill, and in later ones, government departments were very often the organisations which were being complained about by disabled people and therefore we felt that we needed some independent body.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's statement with gratitude. I was only suggesting the possibility that there might be other ways of achieving the same ends if cost factors were all-embracing.
The precedents are not happy for claiming that I stand astounded at my own moderation. The last public figure so to claim had, as I recall, pocketed a cool million or so from Her then Majesty's Indian Empire. But I do hope that sweet reason will secure sweet success early next year, if not this year.
Your Lordships will recall that the Government's handling of this Bill was likened in the press to a Whitehall farce. So be it. For the original Whitehall farces I wanted a long run and an early return of my backers' investment. This Bill has already had a long run—far too long a run in my view. I eagerly await the final Act and can assure Ministers that the Government's investment will be well worth while and will soon show a profitable return—just like the good old days up the road.
10.57 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we are here discussing a Bill whose aim is to make sure that people who have a disability are impaired only by it in so far as it actually affects themselves and they are not dependent on getting through life on luck, being overly courageous or being brilliant. It is about giving them what is often called "a level playing field". That is all that this Bill is about.
I have read through the whole Bill. I never pretend to be a great legal expert and then ask the opinion of other people on it. The Bill may well have mistakes in its drafting—it almost certainly has—because as the

389
Government have shown us on numerous occasions anybody can make many mistakes in drafting. The Bill is about civil rights. Many other noble Lords have spoken about the fact that we have granted civil rights to all other groups in our society who have felt in the past that they have been persecuted. There are probably more to come.
But it was always mentioned beforehand with those groups that we do not need to legislate. It would impose costs and there would be a backlash. We cannot stop the way people think; but to a degree, through the use of law, we can control the way they act. That is what the Bill is about. Attitudes will change. By using the law you can stop somebody being aggressive to somebody else. That is what the Bill is about.
Turning to cost, all that I can say is that neither the Government nor the rest of us can get the figure right because we do not know the relevant parts of the equation. We do not know how many people with how many different types of disability will be affected and in what way.
We are talking primarily about the workplace. Anybody in our society who has money and purchasing power has access to what makes life palatable and reasonable for most of us. That is the way our society works. For good or ill, that is reality. The workplace is changing rapidly. Indeed, we have had several hours of debate today in which noble Lords have stated at considerable length that the workplace is changing very rapidly. In fact, it is changing more rapidly now than ever before and with a snowball effect due to the types of work that are now undertaken and the technology. That change will continue. The technology that is changing the way in which we work will also change what we can do to assist people with certain types of disability.
Effectively, any equation that we draw up today will be out of date within a very short time. We do not know the answer to the cost question - and even if we figure it out for today, it will change tomorrow. Therefore, when we consider the Bill, we are considering basically what it is that will give legal equality to a large group in our society. We do not know how big that group is or how much help is needed. What we are stating is that a major part of our society should be given the same basic rights to fulfil their potential as the rest of us.
We could talk about taking various approaches to the subject, about equality and about allowing all people the same right to fulfil themselves, but I have approached the question as a result of dealing with learning difficulties and disabilities in the education system. That is how I first came into contact with those with such problems. In that area, I have seen a great deal of manoeuvring and changes in policy based on cost. But the Government have recently produced a large code of practice that states one's entitlement in terms of education. If you can do that in one sphere, why not do it in this sphere through the mechanism of a Bill such as this, if not by this actual Bill?
11.2 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, the concept of equal opportunities is now widely accepted as a hallmark of a good employer and good employment practice. I echo strongly the words of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The Bill is about how people act. There will not be miracles overnight in terms of changed attitudes. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said that legislation will not change things and argued that there is not a place for the Bill. The noble Lord should study the areas of racial and sex discrimination to see not only how the way that we act but also the way that we think have changed some years after those two Acts of Parliament went on the statute book. The world is not perfect. There is a long way to go. But racial minorities and women are yards ahead in terms of anti-discrimination measures than are people with disabilities.
In supporting the Bill, I shall address my remarks particularly to employment. To be in employment is to have a meal ticket in our society. The first time you meet people, they still ask, "What do you do?" The reality is that if we are to open up employment to people with disabilities in a fairer, more equal way, we also have to open up access to transport so that they can get to work. There must be better access in the workplace so that disabled people can actually get into work. It is interesting that the Government's present consultation process makes no reference to, and does not include, consultation on transport, which is a key factor to those with disabilities.
In 1989 the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys stated that 6.5 million people in Britain were disabled. This evening many speakers have talked about cost. We do not know what the cost will be. What we do know is that unemployment among people with disabilities is twice that of those who are able bodied. That of itself is a cost to the community in welfare support and benefits.
In 1990 a Department of Employment research paper entitled Employing People with Disabilities found that employers drafted job requirements in a way that unnecessarily excluded people with disabilities. That was certainly my experience in industry. For example, 65 per cent. of employers questioned thought that the ability to climb stairs was vital to work in management. I knew of many managers who arrived at the office in the morning, sat at their desks and never left them during the whole day. Seventy-two per cent. of those who replied thought that good eyesight was vital. That would rule out a whole group of people who had no sight at all. Thirty-one per cent. thought that the ability to walk fairly long distances was vital for employment in a professional capacity at degree level.
Even if those with disabilities got through that maze —they would be lucky if they did—in my experience the interview process is entirely different from that applied to those who are not disabled. If people without disabilities go for job interviews the questions put by the employer are: "What can you do? What is your experience? What are your qualifications and skills?" The questions put to someone with a disability are:

391
"What are your disabilities? Can you walk or see properly? How can you respond?" They are not asked what they can do but what they cannot do. Therein lies the negative attitude that unfortunately exists in the field of employment in Britain.
The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944— passed 50 years ago—required employers with more than 20 employees to employ 3 per cent. of workers with disabilities. Today, it is 0.7 per cent. in the private sector. The Act is not being enforced and is not working. We need to have the kind of civil rights Act that we are speaking about this evening. Indeed, in work that the Law Society carried out in 1992 it was concluded that there was an absolute requirement for statutory provision to help people with disabilities.
Of course, access to work and transport and fair and unbiased interviews and recruitment policies are important. The Bill will provide that. But there is more to life than work. Access to work provides the means to enjoy the greater pleasures in life. Access to the world of arts and entertainment is completely denied to many disabled people. But there are some good examples of access. I never thought that I would put forward football as one of them. However, the Football Trust has done marvellous work in affording access to football matches. One sees on television disabled people enjoying a front line view of matches. How many in theatres enjoy that kind of facility? Twenty-five London theatres do not even have toilets for people with disabilities. Nearly 20 have no loop hearing systems for amplification. Some have no facilities for wheelchair users and make admission difficult. If someone in a wheelchair is able to get into a theatre, he or she has to buy two tickets since many theatres require the disabled person to be accompanied.
The Government have a very good once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I urge them not to miss it. Next year, the national lottery gets off the ground. It is anticipated that it will bring in £70 million in revenue. Without spending one extra penny from the public purse as a condition of receiving a grant, the Government could require theatres, museums and art galleries—all places of art and heritage—to provide access for people with disabilities and for people in wheelchairs. That very positive move would not cost the taxpayer a penny. It would establish criteria. It would mean that by the end of the decade we would have made progress. The millennium would mean something to so many people.
I hope that your Lordships will support the Bill. Perhaps I may give a few examples to encourage that outcome. A member of the public in a wheelchair was refused access to a cinema because he was a fire risk. A blind person with a guide dog was refused access to a taxi because of the possibility of hairs getting onto the seat. At work, a blind person suitably equipped to work in tele-sales was refused a job because the tele-sales office was on the first floor and the employer thought that a blind person could not walk up a flight of stairs. A diabetic person in employment had to have injections regularly and when the company was taken over he was told that he could no longer be employed. A disabled young man with a brilliant degree got through the
392
interview and was offered the job but at a wage lower than that offered to his counterparts doing exactly the same job but possessing fewer qualifications.
Those are real examples; therefore the Bill deserves, support. I tell the Minister that now is his chance to reverse all the bad feeling directed towards the Government because of the despicable manner in which the Bill was dealt with in the other place.
11.12 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I understood that my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell suggested that employers were not willing to employ disabled people because they were likely to be sick more often. I am surprised that, in his capacity as chairman of the Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for the Disabled, he is not letting people know that disabled people are far more likely to continue working when they are ill and are very much better timekeepers because they have had considerable difficulty in obtaining a job in the first place and are frightened of losing it.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I did not malice exactly that point. I was making the point that employers are discouraged from employing disabled people because of the sickness benefit system. I was not advocating anything other than that they are extremely good employees.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble friend if I misunderstood him. Perhaps I may say with regard to the benefit system that I believe that it should taper off in order to encourage people into work; but that is a different question.
I return to the Bill. My original thoughts on a Bill of this kind were not very encouraging because I did not think that it was necessary. I thought that education and persuasion would enable the population as a whole to change its general attitude. However, I have been educated and persuaded to the other point of view. I now believe that we need a proper framework in order to do away, in the long-term, with discrimination against disabled people.
In this country it is unlawful to commit murder or robbery and there are laws against it. We do not encourage either of those. Mere law does not stop it happening, but it acts as a framework in which to discourage it happening more than it does.
I am not sure that this Bill is particularly well drafted or that it even has the right name. I believe that it probably needs a considerable amount of change. However, as a matter of history, I introduced into this House during the last Session what was originally called the Armed Forces (Disabled Persons) Bill. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway told me that he supported the principle behind the Bill but that it was so badly drafted that he would not even speak in favour of it because he thought that it was unamendable.
I do not have the resources of the Government, but I amended that Bill. I changed its name and sent it to the other place in a perfectly workable form. I challenge my noble friend Lord Astor, with all that he has at his disposal, to do the same to this Bill. If both he and the

393
Government really want to do away with discrimination against disabled people they have the facilities and the ability; and, indeed, they can make the time to do so.
I was at a meeting earlier today of the John Groom Association for Disabled People at which my right honourable friend Dr. Mawhinney—and I have told him that I would be quoting from his speech—was speaking. He said:
"You enhance people's quality of life in that you enhance their independence".
That is just what this Bill seeks to do. From the legislation that has been passing through the House from the Government on community care and many other aspects of life, that seems to be just what they have been trying to do. Therefore, let them put their weight behind the Bill. Let them improve it as they think necessary and get it through.
By making the United Kingdom a country where it is easier and more practical for people with disabilities to live their lives independently, we shall enhance those lives. Moreover, we shall also enhance the lives of many other people. Perhaps our lives—as any of us could easily become disabled—will need enhancing in such a way. My noble friend would be wise to remember that one-in-10 persons spend some time of their life in a wheelchair. The Bill is designed to help at least 10 per cent. of the population during some part of their lives.
By making it easier for disabled people to work we move them out of the benefit system and help them to become net contributors to society, not only through their taxes but also by way of all the other things to which they can then so easily contribute. In addition, many carers who are at present unable to go out to work because of a relative's disability would become contributors even if they were only able to work on a part-time basis.
It would, of course, be impractical to expect all buildings and businesses to comply with the provisions of the Bill when it receives Royal Assent, or even within a very short period. At the Committee and Report stages we can discuss how best the Bill could be implemented, together with a sensible timetable. However, the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act has been on the statute book since 1986—that is, eight years—and has not yet been fully implemented. In my opinion, it would be wrong to make the full implementation of the Bill too short a period, but we must make it reasonable in the circumstances that apply in any particular case.
I repeat my challenge to my noble friend: do something about this Bill; you have the facilities and the ability. Make it work!
11.20 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I am delighted to support this Bill so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. It would not have been necessary for us to have this discussion this evening if the Government had maintained some sort of sign of their benevolent neutrality and not the malevolent hostility which led to the loss of this Bill in another place.
394
As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has said, this is the thirteenth Bill we have had on this subject. The Minister in this House, the noble Viscount, in answer to a Question last week, referred to costs of £17 billion. But when he was pressed on how those costs were made up, the Minister refused to reveal the figures of the "compliance cost" before the Second Reading today. I believe the estimates of the compliance costs were commissioned from departments in a hurry and they have been published, as my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) has reminded us, as the compliance cost assessment for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The aggregate of the non-recurring compliance cost, rounded up to the £17 billion has been, and is being, cited by Ministers to justify why this Bill should not become law, and thus impose compliance costs on private business.
I am sure the departments concerned made their estimates in a conscientious way; but we need to examine what compliance cost actually means. To optimise investment alternative outlays must be considered with their respective returns; that is, we should consider the "opportunity cost" at the same time as we consider the compliance cost. To consider only the compliance cost is to consider the outlay but to ignore what the return will be. This attitude tells us nothing, either way, about the merits of any investment that is made. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has assessed the proportion of the population with disabilities at 11.5 per cent., with locomotion disability accounting for nearly 8 per cent. These proportions are expected to be even larger in the years to come.
Of the £17 billion compliance cost, some £10 billion is attributed to upgrading the existing stock of private, non-domestic buildings to provide a reasonable level of access and facilities for disabled people. That £10 billion is calculated at 2.5 per cent. of the cost of entirely replacing that stock. But this compliance cost ignores any return from providing access to the stock for people who, among the 11.5 per cent., would become users of it. If its use by them and, implicitly, by those among the 88.5 per cent. of the population who already use it, can be ignored in this context, how and why was the private stock, valued for replacement on the Government's figure of £500,000 million, ever built in the first place on those figures?
People with a disability are more likely to receive poorer education. They are much more likely to be found in low paid and unskilled jobs. If they are in full-time employment, they are likely to earn up to 20 per cent. less than their able bodied colleagues. Many of the colleges and higher education institutions are still inaccessible to them. The labour force survey in 1992 showed an unemployment rate for disabled people of 20 per cent. and a non-employment rate of 60 per cent. But this rate is probably much higher because the statistics do not count disabled persons as part of the active labour force. We do not know how many more would want, or be able, to work if they were given an accessible transport system; if they were able to enjoy

395
arrangements to work flexible hours; and if there were appropriate state benefits to enable them to work part-time, if necessary.
Having taken out the £10 billion attributed to up-grading the building stock, between £5.5 billion and £6.2 billion is attributed to transport. Some £2.8 billion of that represents the cost of replacing the slam doors on trains within five years. Yet in the compliance cost assessment of the Department of Transport it is pointed out that some of those trains might be withdrawn anyway.
A further £2.5 billion is the difference between replacing within 10 years the existing fleet of local stage buses with low-floor models instead of the traditional models and fitting local stage minibuses with lifts. But again, at what cost benefit?
No account is taken of the fact that over 10 years many existing buses would have to be replaced anyway. No account is taken of the increased revenue from increased ridership among those who would be enabled to use this form of transport. No account is taken of prospective reliance on public transport in urban areas producing further increased revenue. And no account is taken of the experience in Europe—in the Netherlands and Germany—that time saved at bus stops through the use of low-floor buses and the speeding up of the entry and exit of all passengers, both able bodied and those who are disabled, enables some urban routes to be served by fewer buses and thus makes that investment go even further. No account has been taken of the probable relief of congestion and pollution.
There are scant resources in much of the present-day bus industry, particularly in the rural areas now deregulated and privatised. For the industry to invest at all it has to attract many more passengers. Operators have already exploited most of the market, except among people with mobility handicaps whom they have not yet equipped themselves to serve. The mobility handicapped does not mean only the physically handicapped; it means the blind and the deaf, the aged and the infirm, and mothers with young children.
In recent years Cranfield University, supported by the Rowntree Trust, has built up research, detailed in an admirable booklet which has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Rix. I hope that the Minister has had time to consider it and to look at the university's response to the costs and the cross-sector benefits of accessible public transport. It finds that making public transport accessible results in annual savings counted in nine or 10 figures in calls on health and other services. These vary from £256 million to £1,161 million.
The government compliance cost assessment includes an estimate by the Department of Employment that employing 126,000 disabled people to whom impaired productivity is attributed would cost private business £63 million a year. But the Cranfield University report points out that if 127,000 disabled people were in full-time employment in private business on an average wage, the annual total of social security benefits saved and the income tax and national insurance paid would amount to £1,266 million. That annual saving to public funds could be 20 times the
396
annual compliance cost to business. Why could not that compliance cost to business be allowed against tax to reap 19 times as much advantage to the taxpayer?
Why cannot the Government even now show some: benevolent neutrality, accept the principle of the Bill and put it on the statute book at the first opportunity? What can be the ethical, social or economic grounds for not doing that? Is it not possible, even at this late stage, to reach a consensus on what should be in the Bill in time for the Queen's Speech in November? Consultation papers can only delay consideration for another year.
The Government say that they want handicapped and disabled people to live full and independent lives in their community. That is what community care was supposed to be about. Therefore I plead with the Government either to give the Bill their blessing or to give the House a commitment tonight that they will introduce their own Bill in the next Session.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, for me this has been an instructive debate from which I have learned a lot. Like other noble Lords, it is particularly fitting that it should have been initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, whose work for disabled people over many years we all admire so much.
At this stage it is difficult to say much that is new. However, it seems appropriate, having supported the similar Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, almost exactly two years ago, and thereafter passed by your Lordships' House, that I should now seek to summarise my party's attitude to this Bill.
We gladly support the Bill in principle. I certainly do not wish to dwell further on the unhappy way in which the same Bill was dealt with recently in another place. Enough has been said about that already. The basic question that we have all had to consider is whether the Government are justified in saying, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said in answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley last Thursday, that the Government do not see comprehensive legislation as the most effective and practical means of eliminating discrimination against disabled people, that they consider the Bill's drafting to be defective, and that they are concerned about the potential costs and burdens of the Bill.
On the last matter, it is significant that with all his legal and practical experience of the subject the noble Lord, Lord Renton, should then have responded by saying that if the Government were still worried about the alleged cost just two amendments could deal quite simply with the problem; and that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, should himself have reminded the Government, as he has again tonight, that in the Bill there is no time limit set on the period within which it should be implemented, that matter being left entirely to the discretion of the Government.
As regards the drafting, although we have been assured by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that the Bill has been checked by the Law Society it is plain from what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said last Thursday that in the Government's view the drafting is defective at a

397
number of points. We should therefore willingly acknowledge our readiness to consider appropriate amendments in Committee.
Indeed, before the regrettable episode in another place occurred on 6th May, amendments to the Bill had already been made in Standing Committee; for example, in the field of employment—a field on which I am best qualified to speak. In Clause 1, the definition of "employer" was modified. Instead of the definition under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, which gives a small business exemption for employers with fewer than 20 employees, the definition in the Bill, as amended in Standing Committee, no longer gave that exemption and extended to an employee under contract for services. That change is reflected in Clause 1 of the Bill now before us.
In dealing with the question of the enforcement machinery for complaints to an industrial tribunal about discrimination in employment, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People noted that it,
"would confer on the tribunal a potentially far-reaching and novel jurisdiction in relation to contractual disputes between business and self-employed contractors with which the tribunals are not familiar and which might have a significant impact on their case load and staffing".
The Minister added:
"The corresponding provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 197S and the Race Relations Act 1976 phrase their prohibitions differently [from those in the current Bill] focusing on the employment rather than the employer".—[Official Report, Commons, 675/94; col. 1000.]
That difference gave rise in his view to a number of difficulties and led him to feel that the Bill might be deficient and over-ambitious. Its sponsors had perhaps been unduly influenced by American models and terminology which might not always adapt precisely to the United Kingdom's legal framework and conditions. I have touched on that matter, which is rather complex, simply as an illustration of the way in which we might give due consideration to possible amendments to the Bill.
Having said all that, at the end of the day, even if the Bill is passed by the House, we may as a matter of political reality have to recognise that it will not gain overall parliamentary approval in the present Session and reluctantly have to accept the Government's proposal to consult with employers and others on measures to combat unjustifiable discrimination in the five areas of which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, spoke last Thursday; that is, employment, access to goods and services, financial services, the impact of building regulations on disabled people and the creation of an advisory body on disability.
The noble Viscount said last week, and it is worth quoting his precise words:
"We have announced the Government's proposals and we intend within six months to consult on them. The consultation will take account of the views of everyone with an interest in disability. After consultation, we will be prepared to consider assisting in drafting workable and practical legislation, which will be identified by the process of consultation".—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1812.]
Can the Minister tell us just what those last words mean? Will the Government then be prepared only to consider helping in the drafting of suitable legislation
398
or, after what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, told us is now 26 years since he introduced the first of these Bills in another place, will they now undertake to ensure that legislation is brought forward?
I should add that it is some relief to have learnt that instead of having to wait for another six months before consultation can begin the Prime Minister has now stated that consultation will start as soon as possible. If the noble Viscount is able to tell us more precisely when the consultative process will begin I am sure we will all be grateful.
In conclusion, may I say from these Benches how glad I am that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has given us the opportunity to discuss this vital matter once again.
11.37 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure I speak for all of us tonight when I thank my noble friend Lord Ashley for introducing this Bill, and again when I thank my noble friend Lady Lockwood, who steered a similar Bill through this House on a previous occasion. I am sure I also speak for everyone in the House tonight in paying tribute to Dr. Berry and Mr. Alf Morris for their tireless work in steering the Bill through another place.
People are handicapped because they have an impairment: they cannot see, they cannot hear, they cannot walk; they may have a learning disability. But they are disabled because society discriminates against them. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, their handicap is personal but their disability is constructed by us. We impose it on them. That discrimination may be direct, as when the Spastics Society found that two-fifths of all employers would not interview for a secretarial vacancy someone with cerebral palsy. It may be indirect, as when an employer requires a driving licence, which is not essential to the job but which nonetheless prohibits many disabled people from applying for it. Or it may be compounded when we ask disabled people to bear an unequal burden when, for example, it would be reasonable to adapt premises but the employer will not do so.
They come, and we come, with our handicaps. But we—they —construct the disability. It is a disability because it is about the ability of disabled people to make choices and to have equal life chances, which has depended not so much on the inherent limitations of their handicap as, for example, on the limited imagination of house builders who have not designed houses appropriately; or on the stereotyping by employers who will not interview; or on the judgment of waitresses who will not serve; or on the bureaucracy of cinema owners who will not admit; or on the surliness or helpfulness of taxi drivers who will not stop. It has depended on everyone but disabled people themselves.
The Government rightly object to a dependency culture. But that is exactly what we as a society have forced people with disabilities to accept. We have offered care in the community, care for people, care attendants, when what is wanted is not so much needs attended to (although that may be necessary) as rights

399
that are met and held. That is what we have not done. And that is what this Bill is about: rights—not care, not needs, but rights.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said, disabled people should have the same rights as everyone else, where the impediment to those rights can be removed over a reasonable time at reasonable expense. We want no more and no less than that.
As my noble friend Lady Dean said so eloquently, we want the right—these are examples that are very often quoted in another place—of a young policewoman who is injured on duty not to be turned away from a charity event because she is in a wheelchair; the right of a blind man not to be refused a taxi because of his guide dog; the right of a blind doctor going to the Palace to get an MBE not to find her guide dog refused entry; of adults with cerebral palsy not to be refused access to a holiday; of a child with Down's syndrome not to be refused access to a restaurant—and then, to compound the matter, to be able to do nothing at all about it. That is not decent.
Mr. Scott, the Minister, has argued in the past—and some of those arguments have been heard again tonight, I am sorry to say—that we should give the voluntary approach a further chance. Voluntaryism has failed. We do not just have to turn to the Commission for Racial Equality or the EOC for evidence that when voluntaryism fails law can and does change behaviour and will in turn change culture. Jimmy Saville's "Clickety-click" campaign persuaded only 30 per cent of the population to "belt up". Law has persuaded 95 per cent. For most of us it is now second nature. We require manufacturers to label food products with their additives, fat content and the like. That has changed the culture of our eating patterns. The breathalyser has not only made drink-driving illegal but, equally importantly, it has made it unacceptable. As was quoted in another place—noble Lords will forgive me if I quote it again —as Martin Luther King said,
"Reality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless".
Quite so, my Lords.
What have education and persuasion achieved? At the last count they had achieved 60 per cent. unemployment among the disabled; 50 per cent. of our children in segregated schools; 80 per cent. of disabled people dependent on social security—oh, and 0.3 per cent. disabled staff in the Home Office.
The Government do not accept that legislation is needed. We believe that it should be this Bill. On 8th March the Prime Minister encouraged it when he said:
"I hope that the Bill will go into Committee for detailed examination of its provisions".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/94; col. 147.]
The Bill had an unopposed Second Reading. The Committee did indeed examine it; it made some 20 amendments to it; the Minister welcomed most of them, hesitated about only one or two of them and voted against only one of them. Though invited, he did not offer a single amendment of his own. When the Bill was reported back to the other place on 6th May, it was found that suddenly 80 amendments had been tabled by
400
government Back-Benchers, which would block the Bill. They and the Minister denied, untruthfully, that it had anything to do with him.
The sponsors then agreed to accept all the amendments to get the Bill through, and the Minister was left having to talk out the amendments which his own department had drafted so that the Bill could not complete its passage. He did so for 70 minutes while MPs could not force the vote because they were attending John Smith's funeral.
So when the Minister could amend the Bill in Committee he did not do so. When he did offer amendments at Report, he denied responsibility for them. When he did have to accept responsibility and his amendments were accepted, he himself had to defeat them by talking them out: not this Bill at any price—not even at the price of a Minister's honour.
Yet the Minister accepts, as does the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that legislation is needed. But the Minister said last week that while the Government support the aims of the Bill, they do not support it as drafted. If the Minister supports the aims and the need for legislation but not the drafting, why does he not amend this Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), pressed him to do? We are told that the Bill is unacceptable on grounds of cost, timing, consultation and accountability and that together they make the Bill unamendable. If the Government and the Minister wish to use that argument, they are wrong on every count.
As for the matter of cost, which seems to loom so large in Ministers' minds, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has already done a splendid demolition job on that. But I have to say that it is a splendid demolition job on one of the shoddiest pieces of research that it has every been my misfortune to study. Of that £17 billion quoted by the Minister, the sum of £5 billion was contributed by the Department of Transport and £10 billion came from the Department of the; Environment. Both figures were equally bogus. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, reminded the House in regard to transport that the figures assume that all buses, trains and taxis will be replaced within five years. It is a pity that the authors of the financial cost assessment did not bother to read the Bill, when they would have seen that it was open-ended and there could very easily be a phase-in period of 25 years, by the end of which time trains, buses and taxis would already have reached the end of their useful life and one would be talking perhaps about merely the £½ billion extra needed for the design of new vehicles.
It is not just the disabled who would gain from that extra £½ billion. Every elderly person, every pregnant woman, every parent struggling with heavy shopping or troublesome toddlers and anyone with a bad back would be grateful for those same adaptations. All of us at different stages in our lives have a handicap.
As for the environment, the £10 billion figure is even more disreputable. How was it arrived at? So far as I can see, it was reached by estimating the current value of all non-domestic property at £600 million, and calculating that it would cost 2.5 per cent. to adapt it—all of it, and all of it at once. As noble Lords will recall, Mark Twain talked about "lies, damned lies and statistics". Here we

401
have it. First, what the assessment for the Department of the Environment does is to double-count. All departments—transport, education and employment— submitted their own estimates. Then those different figures were repeated in the sums of the Department of the Environment and they were all added together, thus getting double-counted. Perhaps some £6 billion of the £10 billion goes in that.
Secondly, and almost as remarkably, no estimate is made and no contribution allowed for work already done. It is remarkable. This afternoon I was told by a city architect that he estimates that in the City of Norwich some 60 per cent. of all non-domestic buildings, shops, halls, pubs, churches and restaurants are already accessible as a result of work done. Yet not one penny anywhere in this document is allowed for the work that has been done, although the Government is aware of it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, will the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, allow me to intervene? On page one of the Compliance Cost Assessment, it is stated that,
"compliance savings have been included where possible; for example, savings which occur because businesses no longer have to carry out a particular procedure".
In other words, where there are savings or where there is no need to carry out changes, those savings have been included.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister's intervention. In that case will he also look at page 36 and ask himself why the statement on page one is not carried through from page 36 onwards when there is the detailed assessment for existing non-domestic buildings. Perhaps the Minister would care to point out to me anywhere in those detailed assessments that that calculation is made. I invite him to comment. He makes no comment.
On the first point we had double counting; secondly, there is the fact that all the work so far done has not been taken into account. If my authority is any guide—it may not be typical—perhaps half of all the work needed to be done has been done and not one mention is made of that. If the Government do not know what has been done, how on earth can they estimate what needs to be done? We need to cut the Government's figure for that.
Finally, if we take out of the assessment—which again is not done in this report—the listed buildings for which planning consent would be denied and which it would be entirely unreasonable to adapt, then 2.5 per cent. of market cost is almost certainly too high. As my city architect confirmed and as American experience shows, 70 per cent. of the adaptions were done for under £300 and 99 per cent. of them for under £3,000.
So in this document, on which the Government rest their case, we find that the cost compliance estimates have been double counted; that they have ignored all the work so far done; and that they have assumed that all the rest is to be done in five years, right away, with no exceptions. The figures are palpably bogus. I have to say that those responsible should be ashamed of themselves.
402
I hope that the Minister does not continue to insult the intelligence of Members of this House by quoting them at us ever again.
If the Government's case therefore rests on costs, and their costs have been double-double counted because departments have counted twice and they have taken no account of the work done, will the Government then agree that they no longer have a financial case at all? On the contrary, as my noble friend Lord Carter said, disabled people have a real economic and positive contribution to make as they come into work and off benefits which over time could suggest that there would be a nil cost. What a pity that the Government can put this package of figures together, but not a full cost benefit analysis which would show the true sums for our community. So the Government rest their case on figures which are shamefully bogus.
I turn to the second argument the Government offer us, if one can call it an argument; namely, the need for further consultation and greater accountability. On the issue of consultation, if I may comment on the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, where have we all been for the past 15 years? We have had consultation on the DLA, the DWA, the ILF, and the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill as well as on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. We had consultation within the Department of Employment on quotas, access to work and sheltered workshops. We had consultation within the education department on segregated facilities for disabled children and children with special needs. We had consultation within the DoH on community care; we had consultation within the Department of the Environment on local authority housing, on special needs, housing associations, listed buildings and building regulations. We have had all that consultation, let alone 13 Bills, in the 12 years since Alf Morris in another House set up his committee, chaired by Sir Peter Large. We do not need to consult on the Bill because the Bill is about rights. Where consultation properly comes in is in connection with the draft code of guidance, which makes those rights enforceable. That is the basis on which we should consult. That would be entirely proper. That is what the Bill would permit.
As for accountability, Mr. Scott, the Minister himself, helpfully suggested at Committee stage that the code of practice for the disabilities commission should come in draft form to the Secretary of State and should go to both Houses on affirmative rather than negative procedure. The Minister helped the Committee to suggest a clear, simple and effective form of accountability and scrutiny. So, my Lords, where are we? We all agree I think that we need legislation. I hope we all agree that the Government's fears about costs are unfounded, because only reasonable costs may be incurred, and that within a reasonable timescale. We should all be able to accept that we have had consultation in abundance, and that this Bill protects the right of Parliament to steer the issue of policy by virtue of parliamentary accountability. So I, like others tonight, finish by asking the Minister again why he will not amend the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, why not amend it? Why instead indicate possible legislation in

403
the Autumn, thus ensuring the very fragmentation and passing on of the burden of costs to other departments that have so bedevilled change in the past? As my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, how much do the Government estimate their proposals might cost? One can only assume that, though the Government say they do not want discrimination against disabled people— and I believe that—they do not want to give disabled people the rights to prevent that discrimination nor to construct a proper and effective disabilities commission to ensure an effective Act. That is the difference between good will, which we believe the Government may have, and a respect for civil rights, which they clearly do not have. It is the difference between treating disabled people as children, given to being noisy and making unreasonable demands, and viewing them instead as moral adults entitled to define their needs and to hold their rights. I hope that the House tonight will again confirm that principle and support the Bill, because disabled people are entitled to nothing less.
11.57 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the introduction of the Bill has provided your Lordships with the opportunity to debate this important issue. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy reminded the House, the issue has been debated by Parliament since 1969. I should like to begin by making it absolutely clear that the Government wholeheartedly share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people and I am glad that your Lordships recognise that commitment.
As my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said in another place on 11th March:
"the Government share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. We recognise that the aspirations and expectations of disabled people in our society are now firmly part of the political agenda. It is impossible for us to ignore them, even if we wished, and it would not be right to do so".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/94; col. 562.]
He went on to say that what we have to do is focus our minds on the best ways of achieving this aim.
That statement makes it unquestionably clear that we agree on the principle of seeking to eliminate discrimination. Discrimination of any kind is wrong. But to stop the abuse and segregation that discrimination brings is not simply a question of legislating; it is also about awareness, understanding and, above all, attitudes. Combating prejudice and discrimination cannot be achieved by just government, but we have a duty to provide a strong lead and to take positive action when necessary. That will require co-ordinated action by all concerned in government, the private sector, the voluntary sector and the public at large. It is in the approach that we differ from the sponsors of this Bill. We believe that the best way forward is through education, persuasion and specific legislation where necessary—not by all-embracing, comprehensive legislation.
Concerns expressed about costs from business, industry and the Government unfortunately appear not to have been reflected in the Bill before us today. It has been framed without general consultation or the wide support that a measure as far reaching, potentially costly
404
and important as this requires before it can be enacted. I shall give your Lordships some examples. Business and industry have always expressed concerns over costs. Business in Sport and Leisure said of Dr. Roger Berry's Bill:
"Overall we are concerned at the very high costs this Bill would involve for the leisure industry if it became law. We would urge the Government to undertake the widest possible consultation and to consider the full impact on business if this, measure is to receive Government support".
The Institute of Directors has written:
"Regarding the Bill's provisions, the IoD is particularly concerned about the proposals for mandatory physical alterations to business premises. We believe that these arc:, in effect, a tax on businesses, a tax which will be arbitrary in effect and incidence".
The institute goes on to say:
"The potential cost of alterations to premises for business, as proposed in the Berry Bill, is enormous, and, with powers for the Secretary of State to add new types of premises to an already extensive list, could be greater than anyone has so far proposed".
The CBI said:
"The costs of any proposed legislation are also a concern. In the context of the Bill, the tests of reasonableness and awareness of the varying circumstances of businesses are obviously welcome and show the concern of the Bill's sponsors with the wider economic impact of the Bill. However, they remain somewhat vague and there is a concern that vagueness will encourage litigation, eating up resources better spent directly on the need of people with disabilities. UK employers have a good record of legislative compliance and this may mitigate the danger of a spate of claims".
The CBI go on to say:
"Concerns have also been raised that the Bill's provisions, by requiring accommodation in such a wide range of areas, will divert resources away from introducing vehicles and facilities which are fully accessible to people with disabilities and which sit alongside existing fleets and facilities. Nor is there any apparent provision for flexibility in how jobs are structured or goods and services delivered, to meet the need of people with disabilities within what a firm can afford. While appreciating that progress cannot be achieved without extra costs, the size of these and where they will fall are crucial to the success or failure of action in this area".
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend has quoted various organisations complaining about the cost. Over what period are they talking about? Are they talking about instant cost or over a reasonable number of years?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, both. I will say more about costs.
Lord Carter: I wonder whether the noble Viscount will give way. As regards costs, does any of the evidence which he has quoted from the CBI and others give figures, or was it just a series of unverified assertions?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to proceed. I believe that he will get an explanation. The Government compiled and published a compliance cost assessment. A copy was placed in the Library on 5th May of this year. Your Lordships had the opportunity to look at it—
Lord Carter: My Lords—
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to finish my sentence—as did those who were interested in this Bill, whether that be business or organisations connected with people with disabilities.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is very helpful and I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount. Is he saying that all the figures in the compliance cost assessment were produced entirely by the Government, or did the CBI, the Institute of Directors or anyone else provide any of the figures?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the document is published by the Government and the figures came from government departments. The document was put together, and in doing so we did our best to give a broad indication of the likely implications of the Bill introduced in another place. As I have said, the compliance cost assessment was laid in both Libraries on 5th May and was prepared on the best information available.
Much has been made—indeed the point was made in Questions here last week—of the fact that the CCA reflects the civil rights Bill as originally drafted and assumes that compliance would be immediate or deferred for up to five years. The supporters of the Bill contend that, as amended, Clause 10 amply caters for lengthy phase-in periods to address the Government's specific concern. But to leave such an important provision so open would mean that it would be impossible to assume that long phase-in periods would inevitably be the outcome.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords -
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would allow me to make some progress, that would be helpful and it would allow me to deal with Clause 10.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I did not understand the Minister's last sentence.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness must allow me to make some progress. She has made her speech. It is up to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to reply to the debate. I am attempting to answer points on Clause 10.
The amendments to Clause 10 do not address all the fundamental flaws in the Bill. First, Clause 10 applies only to those parts of the Bill surrounding the provision of goods and services, not employment. Secondly, as drafted the clause is by no means as flexible as has been suggested, relating as it does to making exceptions for groups and classes of individuals. I note that those of your Lordships who have been quick to criticise the compliance cost assessment—and in particular its omissions—have not been able to come forward with their own detailed analysis. We must remember that it is a cost just to business, not to the Government or to the nation as a whole. That is an important point.
Although we can argue about whether some of the details may be correct and about whether the figures may be higher or lower than in the document, the compliance cost assessment has confirmed the fears of both Government and industry of the likely impact of sweeping anti-discrimination legislation. By way of illustration, I should like to quote a few examples. Shops, hotels, restaurants, banks, and public buildings, would need to be accessible. This would mean altering existing buildings, involving additional measures such
406
as removing steps at entrances, widening doors and corridors, altering stairs, installing lifts and installing wheelchair accessible toilets. The total cost of providing a reasonable level of access and facilities is estimated to be in the region of £10 billion.
Access requirements in transport would mean replacing or retrofitting most existing buses, trains, taxis, boats and planes. London Underground would need alternative escalators and lifts, and accessible ticket barriers. Extra staff would be needed at stations to provide help. The costs of providing levels of access which are reasonable and workable in terms of service operation for land-based vehicles alone would be in the region of over £5 billion. In addition, operators might have to cover additional staff costs and the costs of training existing staff in the operation of new vehicles and equipment. Costs are estimated to be £150 million to £240 million.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, my concern is that there seem to be two problems. The first is that the compliance costs about which the Government are talking are based on assessment as at 5th May, but my understanding is that the Bill that is now before us has been significantly altered. Therefore, that compliance cost assessment cannot be valid—
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I could answer the noble Lord's point—
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps I could finish. I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me this intervention.
Lord Campbell of Croy: We are not!
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, that was my first point. The other point—and this is where I have some experience—is to ask whether any allowance has been made for action that has already been taken by local authorities and businesses. I call in aid the experience in Manchester where, for the past 10 years, we have had policies to improve disabled access to buildings—
Viscount Goschen: Question!
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sorry but I am genuinely concerned about the Minister's pronounce-ments in terms of the cost assessment—
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way to me. I believe that it is customary in this House that a noble Lord has an opportunity of making a speech and perhaps of asking for clarification by way of a question to the noble Lord who is answering on behalf of the Government. But at this time of night I suspect that for a noble Lord to indulge in making his own speech by means of an intervention is perhaps going a little too far.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with your Lordships' indulgence perhaps I may continue. Referring to the compliance cost assessment, we believe that those were the elements which went to make up a total estimated cost of £17 billion, with a year-on-year cost of £1

407
billion. I do not believe that any of your Lordships can deny that this Bill, whether in its original form or the amended form before the House today, has a considerable cost to business. That cost exists whether or not some of the items are brought in immediately or over a slightly longer period. Of course, we also recognise that there are benefits to business that may flow from the Bill. It is important that people with disabilities are seen as individuals who have individual abilities and skills. To welcome disabled customers is not only good citizenship but is also profitable. More and more companies recognise the financial advantages of attracting disabled people as employees and customers, and are taking positive action to achieve this.
Employment is the key to unlocking potential and ability, enabling disabled people to live fulfilling and independent lives and to enriching our culture and national life. Disabled people are often people of great ability. They wish to develop their skills and talents fully in the workplace in the same way as anyone else. With this aim in mind, we have a programme of education and persuasion to raise employers' awareness, encourage them to concentrate on people's abilities and help them achieve success by releasing individual potential and initiative. For example, the access to work scheme was introduced on 6th June as a positive move forward. The scheme provides disabled people and their employers with a wide range of help in overcoming barriers to work and it will make a major contribution towards assisting disabled people to compete on an equal basis in the labour market.
In 1992 the Government introduced a new benefit —disability working allowance—designed to give financial help to disabled people going into work but who are on low earnings, making it easier for disabled people to achieve greater independence through taking employment. Disability working allowance is unique in Europe. The Government have announced a number of improvements to the benefit: the introduction of a child care disregard from October this year of up to £40 against earnings; remission of National Health Service charges to recipients with savings of £8,000 or less; improving the linking rule for invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance so that those undertaking training will be able to claim disability working allowance when they start work and will be able to reclaim invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance if necessary within two years; an increased allowance for lone parents and couples of up to £8.35 a week; a rise in the threshold for single persons of over £10 a week; and the introduction of a disabled child's premium of £19.45 a week. I hope that those significant improvements will help increasing numbers of disabled people to move into work.
We also introduced new rules from 16th May this year to assist volunteers. People claiming benefits in respect of incapacity for work, which include sickness benefit, invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance, can now do voluntary work of less than 16 hours a week without it affecting their benefit. Previously, benefit could be stopped unless an adjudication officer decided that the work would be therapeutic. This improvement was brought forward to
408
meet concerns expressed by voluntary organisations and their helpers that the existing rules might discourage people from doing voluntary work because of fears about its effect on their benefits.
It may be useful if at this stage I refer to the Americans with Disabilities Act that some of your Lordships have discussed. This piece of legislation is held by some to be the global answer to prevent discrimination against disabled people.
I should point out to your Lordships that it is significant that the Act became law on 26th July 1990 with phase-in times which range from 30 days to 30 years. It is being phased-in over that lengthy period. For example, the employment provisions will apply only to employers with between 25 and 15 employees from July this year. It is too early to make a firm judgment on the weight of its effect. The Forum of Private Business believes that the experience of that legislation so far has been a significant deterrent to the employment of disabled people.
The Bill before us today, like a similar Bill introduced recently in the other place, does not have government support. It would be burdensome, litigious and costly. We have looked long and hard at ways of making this Bill acceptable. Regrettably, during the Bill's passage in another place, we concluded that the substantial lack of consultation during the drafting stages of the Bill had rendered it so defective that even the considerable number of amendments prepared by Parliamentary Counsel could not address its consider-able weaknesses. To make the Bill an effective legislative vehicle would, we believe, require not only substantial amendment but also we should need to consult with those bearing the heaviest burden to ensure that the resulting statute was in fact practical, workable and affordable.
It has been claimed that title Government have been dishonest in their handling of the Bill. I reject that allegation absolutely. The Government have always made clear their opposition to comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation. We have made our views well known, and have come up with our own proposals. The Bill was in fact not talked out on 20th May, as some noble Lords suggested. There was a vote when only 29 Members of the other place voted and business could not therefore proceed in the absence of a quorum. That is what happened. The Bill is listed to come back to another place on 15th July when they will deal with it as it sees fit.
I announced in this House on 10th May, that we intend to consult on proposals to eliminate unjustifiable discrimination. We believe that consultation is at the root of successful legislation. That is why we propose to seek the views of those affected by it in the following key areas: proposals to prevent unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people in the field of employment, as we recognise that the quota scheme may not be the most effective instrument for improving the work position of disabled people; a right of access to goods or services where there is no physical barrier or safety risk; codes of practice on the provision of financial services, and extending roles for the banking and building society ombudsmen to cover cases of unjustified discrimination

409
against disabled people; extending the application of the building regulations as they affect the needs of disabled people—in that context noble Lords will be aware that on 17th May, my noble friend Lord Arran announced his department's intention to consult on provisions for new dwellings within the building regulations; a new independent body to advise the Government on issues relating to discrimination against disabled people. That body would work closely with existing statutory bodies representing the interests of disabled people and would report regularly on progress towards reducing and removing discrimination as well as making recommendations for further improvement.
We have repeatedly stated our commitment to consultation. Our plans are well under-way for that consultation to take place. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that we hope to start that consultation as soon as possible. We need to get our plans right, and to do so we intend to consult widely in order to take account of the views of everyone with an interest in disability. In that way we shall better secure understanding and commitment to action. As a part of that process, the Government will study carefully what has been said in your Lordships' House this evening. I very much hope that noble Lords will be involved in that exercise of consultation and will bring their very considerable interest and experience in this area to bear. The Government's proposals will be subject to the very widest consultation, which will include the transport industry and those committees that advise on disability and mobility issues; for example, the Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee.
At the end of that process, if we believe that new primary legislation is needed we shall give such assistance as is necessary to draft it. That, of course, will include a compliance-cost assessment if a Bill is produced. We hope that that process will help to further eliminate unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people. I know that my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lady Seccombe have welcomed that commitment from the Government.
Our proposals are far reaching and they address the main components of the Bill before the House this evening. However, I believe that they do so in a way which is more practical and affordable. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who asked about the human rights commission, I should respectfully point out to him that no other European state has comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people, although some countries have partial legislation. The proposals that the Government have made to remove unjustifiable discrimination as regards all kinds of disability are important and represent the Government's commitment in the area. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am much obliged. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to one of the two points that I made. However, I was not referring to the European Convention on Human Rights but to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which goes well beyond Europe. The point on
410
which I was seeking an answer is this. There is a positive obligation in that covenant to legislate in order to secure effective remedies for the wrong of unjustifiable discrimination. How can the Government possibly justify their continuing inaction?
I also set out the five principles justifying legislation in the field. Do the Government accept in principle that those arguments apply with equal force to discrimination against the disabled as they do to discrimination against ethnic minorities or women? If not, what is the difference?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is important to bear in mind the nature of the Government's proposals. I hope that I have made them very clear. Of course, we take account of the various conventions mentioned by the noble Lord. They are indeed important. We shall take account of them when we consider proposals for legislation. I cannot really go any further than that tonight. It is important to note that the Government have an open mind about the consultation and will study the issues very clearly. We do not prejudge the issues. As I said, if we feel that primary legislation is necessary we shall assist in its drafting in the future.
I should stress that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear that the Government are determined to take action in the area. He has given a commitment to press ahead with the consultation in the coming months. As I said, plans are in hand to publish our proposals as soon as we are able to do so.
I began this evening by reaffirming the Government's commitment to the elimination of unjustifiable discrimination on the grounds of disability. I believe that that is a fitting note on which to conclude. I have to tell your Lordships that the Government cannot support the Bill. We have always made our position clear on the matter. We do not believe that this Bill of comprehensive legislation is the way forward. However, I hope that your Lordships recognise the importance of the commitment and the proposals that the Government have made as regards consultation which I have outlined to the House this evening.
12.25 a.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Viscount for the help that he has given to the House and to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. However, I thank the noble Viscount in particular as he has been very helpful in revealing the Government's attitude, but it would have been even more helpful had he listened to some of the speeches. My feeling is that he has just made a speech which bore no relation to many of the speeches made on both sides of the House.
It is customary simply to say "Thank you", but I believe that the noble Viscount has enraged the House by his failure to deal with many significant and substantial points. How can he speak of consultation after some 15 years in government have elapsed and 12 years after the first Bill was brought forward? And now the Government are going to consult. How can he speak of the cost assessment that the Government have

411
produced without mentioning the cost benefit mentioned by myself and every speaker right through to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and after the sponsor of this measure in another place has explained in great detail all the discussions that have taken place? How can the noble Viscount suggest that there have been no consultations on the Bill?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, this is very important. I would not dream of speaking at this hour if the noble Viscount had made some effort to deal with these important problems. He did not mention once the cost to disabled people, but he cannot speak of the compliance cost assessment and not mention cost benefit. That is crucially important. Alan Howarth, a Conservative Member from the other place, has been asking and begging the Government to give a cost benefit analysis and the Government have said no. That is unfair and quite wrong, and that is the basis of our anger tonight.
I conclude with this thought. I have a feeling that Members of this House and the Minister are speaking different languages. I feel as if I have been talking to a Chinaman tonight because there has been no communication between us and no understanding. We have gone to an awful lot of trouble over our speeches. We have spent days and weeks preparing speeches and preparing arguments. They may not have been as good as the speeches of Demosthenes or Pericles but they have been put forward in good faith. They were backed
412
by researchers, assistants and helpers. But what does the Minister do?—he peddles bromides from a brief which is irrelevant. I must stop because I shall go over the top.
A noble Lord: You have.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sorry but you have asked for it. I regret that the Minister has really let the House down. He has enraged this House. He will have enraged the House of Commons—
Noble Lords: Answer!
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, he can answer by all means. He will have deeply and profoundly dismayed disabled people. We do not want from the Prime Minister any half-baked solution in November. We must have a comprehensive Bill of Rights for disabled people. That is what this Bill is about; that is what we want—nothing more and nothing less.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
Returned from the Commons with one of the amendments agreed to with amendments and with the remaining amendments agreed to.

Sunday Trading Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to, a further amendment agreed to with an amendment, and the remaining amendment disagreed to with a reason for such disagreement.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past midnight.

  BRITISH PRESS: FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
  BRITISH PRESS: FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
  CARE OF THE MENTALLY ILL IN THE COMMUNITY: REPORT RESPONSE
  CARE OF THE MENTALLY ILL IN THE COMMUNITY: REPORT RESPONSE
  FIRE SAFETY LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT: REVIEW REPORT
  FIRE SAFETY LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT: REVIEW REPORT
  CHINOOK HELICOPTERS: RADAR EQUIPMENT
  CHINOOK HELICOPTERS: RADAR EQUIPMENT
  DOMESTIC WORKERS FROM OVERSEAS
  DOMESTIC WORKERS FROM OVERSEAS
  DEPUTY CIRCUIT JUDGES: APPELLATIONS
  DEPUTY CIRCUIT JUDGES: APPELLATIONS
  NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES: SCRUTINY
  NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES: SCRUTINY