Sitting of 29 March 1995

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Domestic Violence
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  10.4 am
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: In raising the issue of domestic violence, I want to highlight four areas of special concern. They are the effect of domestic violence on children; the operation of prosecution policy, as instanced by the under-prosecution of domestic violence because of the ease with which women can withdraw complaints; the need for a corporate approach by local authorities at the most senior level; and work to tackle the root causes of domestic violence, which is largely perpetrated by men.
  Those who suffer domestic violence are not criminals. Whatever they may feel or be told, it is not their fault. Although 90 per cent. of victims are women, in my view it is not a womens issue, to be ghettoised by male policy makers or national or local elected representatives. However, it takes men to raise the issue, to force other men in senior positions to sit up and take notice of that crucial area of social policy.
  I will not cite many statistics, but certainly domestic violence knows no social frontiers of class, wealth or ethnicity. During last autumn's long recess, I spent several hours with one domestic violence forum in Birmingham. It is based on one of the current police divisions, although that is to change, and co-ordinated by officers from the city council chief executive's department.
  I spent four hours with that 20-strong group, all of whose members are women. They included representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service, Churches and the Salvation Army; solicitors, health visitors, staff from local authority housing departments and social services; and representatives of housing associations, the Children's Society and Relate. The police and probation service were represented, as were hostel staff.
  During that session, which included one devastating role play of the effects of domestic violence on children, several issues were raised, but I cannot mention them all today. One was the lack of separate waiting rooms for victims and defendants in Birmingham courts. One can imagine what it must be like for a victim to take the matter that far and then find herself in the same room as the defendant.
  That problem has largely been solved by the city's new Crown courts, and the magistrates courts are due to be revamped next year. I am particularly grateful for the
  938
  interest shown in that aspect by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor).
  Birmingham's city-wide inter-agency steering group on domestic violence—which includes citizens advice bureaux, benefits agencies and other players in the voluntary sector that I mentioned—defined domestic violence as follows:
  The cycle of abuse affecting women which takes the form of habitual, repeated or random use of intimidating behaviour aimed at controlling and subjugating the individual. This can occur through physical, psychological, sexual, emotional and verbal means, which in turn causes responses such as fear, humiliation, shame and guilt, and changes in a womans behaviour. That occurs across all sections of the community regardless of culture or social-economic status and within heterosexual or lesbian relationships. The most important point to take account of is that it can kill.
  There are about half a million reported incidents of domestic violence a year in this country. In Birmingham in 1993, more than 5,000 domestic violence incidents were reported to the police, leading to almost 1,000 arrests. In north Birmingham's D police division, which includes most of my constituency, there were just over 1,200 reported incidents. Of seven murders in Birmingham in 1993, five were attributable to domestic violence. This year there have been more, and several serious attempts at murder, as women have attempted unsuccessfully to leave.
  More and more women in recent years have been encouraged to use their rights as citizens. I shall never forget one lady who came to my surgery a couple of years ago, just after the last election, and who had been on the receiving end of violence. She belonged to a culture that does not exactly treat women equally. She said:
  I have learned to speak up for myself so I can defend myself and my children, and I have found out that I can get help
  She had already sought help before coming to me, but I dealt with other aspects of the case.
  Information is both a power and comfort to the victims. The police do take the issue much more seriously than they did a decade ago. Some firms of solicitors specialise in this area. I pay tribute to Tyndallwoods in Birmingham, which some years ago set up a women's 24-hour legal helpline to deal with domestic violence.
  Nevertheless, there remain considerable hurdles for the victims. The need for access to quick legal aid; an end to different treatment of married and cohabiting women as compared with other cases where the violence is external to the household; owner-occupiers and tenants being treated differently; the attacker being a joint owner or tenant—all these factors lead to complex and different procedures, which can be daunting.
  Indeed, the latest restrictions on legal aid mean that it is almost impossible for women to pursue civil or criminal proceedings using legal aid. Most women in work will not qualify; and worse still, others will be deemed to have income by virtue of the income of their violent partners. That places the victims in an incredibly difficult position.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am following the hon. Gentleman's arguments with great interest, because I used to practise in the courts. I cannot quite see why there should be a difference between the

  939
  treatment of people in rented accommodation and of those who are owner-occupiers. I should be grateful for some elucidation.
  Mr. Rooker: It is not possible in the time available to go down all the byways. It has to do with income and ownership. If a woman is in a hostel, there will be a difference in the rehousing of her children. It will depend on whether she has been the part owner of an owned house or a tenant of a private landlord or local authority. These factors will result in differences of treatment, which boil down to questions of future housing—and it can all be very bewildering.
  Injunctions vary; if taken out under the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976, put through the House by our late friend Jo Richardson, then there is power of arrest. With civil injunctions, there is no power of arrest; and even getting an ouster order has to be done by means of the law on trespass.
  I realise that the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, currently in another place, will deal with some of these anomalies, although some of the points that I want to raise are not dealt with in it. That is one reason for my speech this morning.
  An injunction with power of arrest presents problems for the police, which are too easily resolved by not making an arrest. This is because the arresting officer has to be the person going to court with the defendant. My constituents believe that any police officer should be able to go to the court with the defendant armed with a statement from the arresting officer. More importantly, the power of arrest where there is evidence should cease to be discretionary.
  It has been put to me that a major concern is the number of women sufferers of domestic violence who later withdraw their complaints. That is done for a variety of reasons. Anyone can make a mistake. But the facility to withdraw a complaint is openly abused by defendants. Intimidation from both the defendant and members of his family is frequent. The police know that, in many cases in which a complaint is withdrawn, the victim later informs the domestic violence liaison officers that she was coerced into submitting the retraction statement.
  Action should therefore be taken to make it more difficult to issue a retraction statement—particularly when the offence has involved arson or the use of caustic substances; a section 18 wounding; or threats to kill where a weapon was involved. Following any offence of violence where a child was a witness, a retraction statement should not be taken from the victim.
  Also, once a victim has withdrawn a complaint against a defendant—if that is allowed—no further retraction statements should ever be taken from that victim if a further complaint is made in the future. Of course, that might put people off complaining, but I shall cover that point later.
  The Crown Prosecution Service should publish its policy guidelines on the prosecution of such offences; those guidelines should ensure that such cases are not withdrawn too easily. Perhaps research into this aspect should be undertaken.
  Bail conditions need attention, too. Too often, those conditions are not specific enough, and the perpetrators will stand around in public places, where it is difficult to
  940
  move them on. They may wait in the street, or outside a college, shops or factory. They may stand outside the homes of the victims relatives, where the victim has to go, to harass, frighten and intimidate. Hence the need for more specific bail conditions.
  Local authorities have a major role to play. I know that they come in for criticism in this House, but the fact is that they are the bodies that can perform a genuine co-ordinating role, linking their own services, the police, health authorities and GPs. This does, however, require action at the very top of local authorities, at chief officer level. This is not a matter for delegation.
  Some local authorities, such as Northampton, have regular meetings of chief officers to look at the issues. Responsibility is not delegated to less senior people, and work is done in partnership with external agencies such as the Women's Aid Federation. They look on domestic violence as a crime with victims and perpetrators, not as a womens issue. That attitude is crucial.
  It requires men at the top to spell out to councillors the fact that policy in this important area is not a side issue or a ghetto issue. The hostel and refuge provision in the public sector needs some attention. From what I have heard and seen, local authority hostels tend to be used as a last resort, unlike those in the voluntary sector. This, in the main, is because they are not geared up for the needs of children. That can be a nightmare.
  It is estimated that some 750,000 children may be suffering long-term trauma due to exposure to domestic violence. The children are our future, and it is here where work has to undertaken in the schools to change attitudes. Children witness domestic violence, but they will still cry to their mothers that "Daddy has been taken away", and ask why he is not with them in the hostel.
  The pressures upon a woman victim forced to leave home with children to seek sanctuary can be immense, especially if the children are unhappy, bewildered, away from their friends, and sent to new schools, with all the fear that that brings to young children.
  The pressures of coping with several different agencies, dealing with finance, housing, education, the police, solicitors, and trying to take and collect the kids to and from school and get back into a hostel before it closes are all too much for some victims. Some take the easy way out and head back home, usually to a welcoming beating.
  There are no easy answers—no one claims there are. Twenty years ago, a Select Committee on domestic violence recommended more refuge bed space: one per 10,000 population. We currently have only about 10 per cent. of that number.
  I have touched very briefly upon narrow aspects where progress needs to be made. Attitudes—mainly mens attitudes—need changing to end this unacceptable behaviour. I have concentrated on the 90 per cent. of victims who are women. By definition, the other 10 per cent. are men. It is easier to change the attitudes of men if the victims are given help, and if it is known by all concerned that top people will move quickly to help victims.
  As a constituency Member, I know the difficulties of getting help quickly to some of these people. As a result, some women put up with intolerable situations for too long, and murder can result.
  It might be useful to hear from the Minister about the Home Office-sponsored research by Dobash et al of Cardiff university. I have been familiar with that research

  941
  only for the past couple of weeks, but I understand that its publication has been put back. It would be useful for people to see it, so that we can make a judgment whether any recommendations are positive. There may be resource implications to be looked at.
  Men must be confronted and not let off the hook, and many local schemes are attempting to do that. In Birmingham, "Freshstart"—I do not know why that name was chosen, because that name has been used for another purpose—makes contact with the women partners. It pulls in the men so that they can talk, and they are confronted with what they have done. At the same time, their partners are contacted to ensure their safety, while the menfolk go through the process of chatting about what they have been up to, over an eight to 10-week period.
  So far, it has proved highly successful, and does not cost a great deal. Nevertheless, it is something that has to be driven from the top. It requires chief officers to tell local authorities that such schemes are worth while, and that they want senior people involved in them. It is not a matter that should be pushed away to junior staff.
  Encouragement must be given to work in the schools with young boys, particularly those who display aggressive behaviour in the playground. Some of them will role-play in the playground the domestic violence that they have seen at home. That is understandable, but it must be nipped in the bud at an early stage. They think that it is normal and acceptable behaviour. The education sector has a key role to play in changing attitudes.
  In summary—I do not wish to detain the House, as these brief debates have proved extremely useful and I am keen to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak—we need better, more accessible information for women—for example, on child benefit and social security allowance documents. There should be more access to freephone 24-hour help lines, which are an extremely valuable resource. It is a comfort to know that they are available, believe me.
  There should be more and better safe places in refuges, and they should be more in tune with the fact that, by and large, the woman victim will have young children. We have to think about the effect on the children in the hostels. They have to be there in certain circumstances, but it must not be a trauma for them. The trauma should be reduced to the absolute minimum, and that requires changes in the quality of hostel provision.
  There should be better legal remedies. I know that a forthcoming Bill will insist on improving legal remedies. I make no complaint about that. There should be more work with children in school; more training for solicitors, health workers and the police; and a co-ordinated operation from city councils and local authorities. It is important that that is resourced over a long period.
  I thank those in my constituency who help my constituents who are involved in domestic violence: health visitors, the police, the Children's Society, which makes a valuable contribution from the small base it has, and Women's Aid and the Salvation Army, whose hostels in parts of north Birmingham provide a model that the city could well follow.
  I thank the volunteers who staff some of the help lines out of their own pocket, without any public resource. They give comfort and aid to women. I thank Birmingham social services department, which some years ago set up an organisation known as PAROSA, which has a 24-hour
  942
  help line for Asian women and Asian families. It has qualified staff on the other end of the telephone, where language is not a barrier and help can be provided. The victims should have the comfort of knowing that information and help is available in these circumstances.
  Domestic violence is not something that they have to put up with in the quiet of their own home, suffering a battering day in day out, week in and week out, worrying about the affect that it will have on the children and making excuses for the damage, perhaps to their faces and arms. It is wholly unacceptable behaviour in our society at this part of the century. Frankly, we have to do more about it. I hope that we can send some signals this morning to those who work in the area, that the House of Commons is at least aware of the situation.
  10.24 am
  Lady Olga Maitland: I give a warm welcome to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for a most important debate. I totally endorse his definition of domestic violence. He said that domestic is a crime, not a womens issue. I regard domestic violence as a serious issue. A mugging at home is no more acceptable than a mugging in the street. The tragedy is that, for many years, domestic violence was not given the due attention it deserved, and we all know that it is no myth.
  I congratulate the Government on their many initiatives in bringing help and support to a very beleaguered section of our society. Such violence is growing every year. Disturbingly, some 40 per cent. of the women murdered in 1993 were killed by their spouses or partners. But even with the many thousands of cases recorded by the police, there is evidence that it is only the tip of the iceberg. The truth is that many women are fearful of reporting their partners or spouses to the police.
  Indeed, I can recall very well going out on a police patrol in Bethnal Green, during which we received an urgent call from a young teenager, to visit a home in a tenement building. He said, "Come quickly, my father is beating my mother very badly. Hurry!" The sense of urgency was quite acute. His call had a calming effect on the father, who, when we arrived, was striding around the flat, still excited, but insisting that everything was "perfectly all right".
  It did not seem so to me. His wife was huddled in the kitchen, her face bloodied, black and blue. It was a terrible sight. But she did not say a word against her husband. She did not dare, for fear of reprisals. There was nothing we could do. We had to leave, and the tragedy is that she did not press charges, then or later.
  I very much hope that the Governments excellent domestic awareness campaign, launched last October with a clear message, "Domestic Violence is a Crime—Don't Stand for it", will have some effect. We want to encourage them to come forward. There is no excuse for perpetrators to escape unscathed, and this campaign a complemented by a leaflet, produced in a number of languages and targeted specifically at women who may be reluctant to report domestic violence because of their immigration status. Its message is clear: nobody, whatever their nationality or immigration status, should have to fear violence or abuse of any kind.
  I welcome the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on domestic violence, in which it recommended that every police division in London set up a domestic violence unit.

  943
  So far, 28 police forces have special units, and I am proud to say that one of them is run by the Epsom and Sutton division, which covers my constituency. We have two full-time domestic violence officers working flat out, but it would be a mistake to believe that they act alone. Every officer in the division is involved—all 360 of them. It is a team effort, in which they all have an input.
  We also have our own very active victim support scheme—one of 375 victim support schemes across the country, which altogether are funded to the tune of more than £7 million a year. It is a valued service.
  One imaginative scheme that deserves wider attention is a pilot programme in the Central region of Scotland, where panic buttons, of the sort used by thousands of elderly people, are handed out to women at risk. The scheme is only three months old and, according to the last report, only two of the nine women equipped with panic buttons have not had to press them. As soon as they do, the phone rings in the regions emergency care control unit and case details appear on the computer screen with a message to call the police immediately.
  So far, it takes, on average, three minutes for the police to be at the door complete with details on whether there is a restraint order in force against the man, and the ages of the children. I am delighted to report that the scheme has been welcomed by Sutton police, who regard it as effective because women can get an immediate response. As a result, the police are beginning to install the first alarm in the home of a person who is considered to be particularly at risk.
  There is pressure on the Government to fund more womens refuge centres, and that is an attractive and tempting idea. However, I am not sure from conversations that we have had with Sutton's housing department that that is the main issue. Many people apply to social services and, in turn, to the housing department for help. But the great majority—500 in our case—were given sufficient emotional support and counselling to enable them to return home with their problems resolved.
  The housing department helps when it is needed. For a variety of domestic reasons, 66 households were rehoused. But of that number, only 28 families were rehoused because of breakdown resulting from a violent relationship.
  The social services department gave me a word of caution. It says that some applications by women are rather dubious, in that they claim excessive domestic violence, which the department feels is somewhat exaggerated in the telling, as a means of getting greater benefits or access to alternative accommodation.
  I do not want in any way to use that illustration to denigrate a serious issue. The department has noticed that the numbers of people crying out for help are increasing. It is hard to assess exactly why that is so. More relationships end in blows, and, over the last 20 years, Britain's partnerships are ending in divorce and break-ups are growing at an epidemic rate. Perhaps that has led to increased bitterness.
  The hon. Member for Perry Bar rightly said that children are the real victims of domestic violence. I congratulate the Department of Health on taking a lead in co-ordinating the work of the interdepartmental group on child abuse. This is an extremely important area. Esther Rantzen's Childline
  944
  has some chilling examples of horrifying abuse. Children can be damaged for life by their experiences. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, based on reported domestic violence, some 750,000 children across the nation may be growing up in an atmosphere of fear and violence. We ignore their plight at our peril.
  I agree that local authorities should co-ordinate services, and that it should be done from the top. Chief executives should have an overview, and local authorities should look carefully at their budgets and their consciences. They should cut extraneous spending in cosmetic and political areas and concentrate on the real priority of social services and particularly on children who are the victims of domestic violence. They could focus resources to give a positive benefit.
  For example, they could provide skilled counselling for children, which can be very helpful. A play therapist can help a child work through what has happened so that it can face the future. Schools play an essential role in helping to identify children at risk, and that means that teachers will need training for that important task.
  There is a demand for such services. A survey by NCH Action for Children, based on a poll of 108 mothers with 246 children who had all suffered domestic violence, is telling. Three out of four women questioned said that their children had seen violent incidents, and almost two thirds of the children had seen their mothers beaten. One in 10 women reported having been raped in front of her children.
  All claimed that their children were aware of violence, and almost three in 10 mothers said that their violent partner had also beaten their children. As a result, the children developed serious anxiety symptoms, starting with bed-wetting. They have difficulty concentrating on school work and become poor achievers. One in three youngsters became violent and aggressive. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Perry Barr.
  That becomes a self-perpetuating syndrome because as those children grow up they inflict the same punishment on the next generation. Many develop serious sleeping problems. They become anxious and withdrawn and find it difficult to trust anybody, let alone develop an ability to form close relationships. The survey shows that children witness violence over long periods. On average, the relationships that were described as violent lasted about seven years. That is dreadfully oppressing for children.
  I trust that time and resources will be made available to continue to study the effect on children and the help that we can give them. They are innocent victims, and I shudder at the thought of the helpless cry of a child going unanswered. They are our highest priority. It is essential to make sure that we continue to tackle domestic violence with the vigour that we have shown so far. It must be treated as a crime, and the perpetrators must be brought to justice.
  10.35 am
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I have taken a special interest in this subject because of Edinburgh's pioneering role in the zero tolerance campaign. I pay tribute to Franki Raffles, the brilliant designer of that campaign, who, tragically, died a few months ago. She is sorely missed, but the work that she started goes on. Many local authorities in Scotland and, I think, in England as well have adopted the zero tolerance

  945
  campaign or a variant of it. Local authorities in Scotland have come together to carry the campaign forward, and are commissioning new material to extend it into a new phase.
  The problem with the campaigns by local authorities is that not every part of Scotland will be covered. As hon. Members would expect, I propose to concentrate on Scotland. Highland region will not take part in the campaign. People in Edinburgh and elsewhere have been demanding for a long time that the Scottish Office take the initiative and organise and co-ordinate that campaign.
  It would be churlish to deny that the Scottish Office has taken some action. There has been an advertising campaign in Scotland, and that part of it on television has not been too bad. However, the poster campaign has not been handled in the best possible way. One reason for that is that the main poster in Scotland reinforced the stereotype of domestic violence, depicting it as a working-class problem. For the benefit of hon. Members who are not from Scotland, I should say that the poster featured two fists with tattoos stating Love and Hate and a caption which read, Which one will she get tonight? The tattoos have class implications.
  One of the important aims of the Edinburgh campaign is to establish that the problem pervades all classes in society. That was a flaw in the Scottish Office poster campaign. Regrettably, the advertising campaign has now ended, and, as far as I know, the Scottish Office does not intend to take it further.
  We need not a campaign but a strategy, and that which is being formed by the local authorities is based, first, on prevention; secondly, on provision; and, thirdly, on protection. As other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, I shall be brief in describing each of those.
  Prevention has been pioneered by the zero tolerance campaign in Edinburgh, which is based on raising the issue and trying to tackle the attitudes that lead to domestic violence. The campaign was based on the fundamental assumption that domestic violence was part of a continuum of violence against women and children, which is why sexual abuse and rape were included. That continuum expands to lesser forms of violence such as slapping, but they are also serious.
  The zero tolerance campaign grasped the fundamental issue that domestic violence is rooted in male power and control over women. The underlying background to domestic violence is the historic belief that men have the right to have that power and control. The campaign has been willing to grasp that nettle. It must be grasped, which means challenging men.
  Great unevenness of provision exists Scotland. There are whole areas where no refuge provision exists. That issue must be grasped at Scottish Office level. There is not enough provision, even in local authorities that have it. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has issued guidelines on how many refuges each local authority should have, but not one local authority in Scotland meets those guidelines. That is a funding issue for the Scottish Office.
  The protection of women has various aspects. First, men must be properly sentenced once they have been convicted. Secondly, proper help must be given to women who want to get injunctions. The diminution of legal aid makes it more difficult for women to get injunctions to protect themselves against men who are threatening them.
  946
  Thirdly, there is retaliation, which is not such a frequent issue, but which arises in quite a few cases in relation to the protection of women.
  When the matter was last debated nearly two years ago, I referred to the "Brookside" programme. The plot that I mentioned then is still running, as some hon. Members will know. That programme will cover the issue of what happens to a woman who understandably retaliates when the position becomes impossible. The character in that programme will be tried for murder. It will be a topical issue, which must be dealt with.
  This morning, I was pleased to read in The Scotsman that a 60-year-old woman who drew a knife on her husband when she was being attacked was just admonished in court yesterday. Perhaps things are changing, but I also read in this mornings Edinburgh Evening News a depressing story about a victim of rape who had £3,000 of the £4,000 that she had received in compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board taken away because she had committed various minor breach of the peace offences. It is a shocking indictment of society that a rape victim could be considered worthy of only £1,000 in compensation.
  The protection of women victims involves many issues. I hope, and the campaign that local authorities are co-ordinating in Scotland is demanding, that a working party should be formed to consider the protection of women and the treatment of domestic violence by the criminal justice system.
  Other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall draw may remarks to a close. I hope that the Government will consider the issue with the seriousness that it deserves. I concede that the Scottish Office has done something, but I hope that it will do much more.
  10.42 am
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on bringing this important subject to the Floor of the House. Domestic violence has a low public profile, but it is disturbingly widespread. As we have heard, it is the second most common form of violence reported to the police, and it makes up a quarter of all recorded crime.
  Of course, of all crimes, it is perhaps the hardest for the Government to tackle. We can put more police on the streets, try to make houses burglar-proof, and encourage neighbourhood watch schemes, but none of that will protect a woman or a child from domestic violence. What can we do? Today, we have heard some of the solutions that are being proposed, but, especially in a crisis, we need to make it as easy as possible for victims to leave their homes where they cannot live safely and, if they choose, to take action against their tormentors.
  In combating domestic violence, the first priority is to tackle refuge overcrowding and funding problems. Money must be made available to local authorities so that they can provide one refuge place per 10,000 of the population as part of a national strategy for refuge provision. Voluntary groups, many of which provide refuges, suffer from a dreadful insecurity of funding, and therefore of long-term planning.
  I agree that legal action is a difficult and sensitive issue. If a victim of violence does not wish the police to take action, should they go ahead, regardless of her wishes, so that society sends the message to perpetrators that such

  947
  behaviour will not go unpunished? It may be that the desire not to have the offender prosecuted arises from fear of repercussions, of being made homeless, or of not being able to provide for children. It may simply arise from not wanting to be alone. If so, we should be helping that person by offering her the choice through housing and financial and emotional support.
  Fear of the legal process may be, and often is, a factor, but the major factor influencing victims of domestic violence is often a genuine desire to avoid prosecution because of their love for the perpetrator as a husband or father—which is often difficult to believe—because of the knowledge of the effect that the prosecution will have on other members of the family, especially young children, or, as we heard earlier, because of threats and coercion.
  What we in Westminster see as the right thing to do is never an easy option. It is often difficult to decide whether to prosecute. We can ensure that the best possible counselling and advice is made available, and that all unnecessary fears are dealt with.
  The hon. Member for Perry Barr mentioned the spread of departments and organisations involved at local level. That makes an inter-agency approach essential. The police and social services, health and education departments all have a part to play. There is an example of that teamwork in Dorset, where all those agencies are taking part in a domestic violence project in an attempt accurately to assess the scale of the problem and to consider the appropriate police response.
  The purpose of that inter-agency forum is
  to identify and monitor the incidence and nature of domestic and family violence … to reduce the risk of violence in the home or arising from those relationships termed as domestic and family violence, to emphasise the unacceptability of this behaviour, to reduce the risks to adults and children who are exposed to domestic and family violence, to respond to the needs of those affected.
  The project began only a few weeks ago, on 1 March, but the project co-ordinator, Detective Sergeant Gill Donnell, says that, already, an increasing number of self-referrals are being made to the project by victims who would have been reticent in making contact directly with the police. That is an example of the sort of approach that the Government should be encouraging.
  It is difficult to say that we will ever eliminate domestic violence. It has been, and certainly will be, with us for a long time, but, by publicising the fact that people who are suffering have someone to whom they can go, and by providing properly funded counselling and, as a last resort, refuges, we can limit the suffering.
  10.49 am
  Ms Jean Corston: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his success in securing a debate on this important subject. It is important to women, important in terms of the law, important for children and the viability of family life, and certainly important to policy makers.
  Two weeks ago, I presented a Bill on the subject of domestic violence. It called attention to three issues: the unacceptability of domestic violence, which is criminal behaviour; the provision of information about the legal remedies available to people who suffer domestic violence; and refuge provision for people fleeing domestic violence.
  948
  As hon. Members have said, domestic violence has a long history. We all know the phrase rule of thumb, but not many of us know that it comes from the old idea that a man was allowed to beat his wife so long as he did not use a stick any thicker than his thumb. People routinely use the phrase, without realising its derivation. Mention has also been made of the fact that domestic violence is no respecter of social class, and is indeed an expression of male power over women, which the phrase rule of thumb adequately describes.
  It is important to recognise the effect that domestic violence has on children and women. A friend of mine in her forties said that it was only when observing the married relationships of her friends that she realised that domestic violence was not the norm. Her father had beaten her mother, and her husband had beaten her. She thought that was what marriage was like—that is the view of a youngish to middle-aged woman today.
  The effect of domestic violence on children sometimes has to be seen to be believed. A couple of years ago, I represented in court a woman who was applying to commit her husband to prison for breach of a domestic violence injunction. She had been getting injunctions against him for years. He had beaten her, assaulted her with a knife and thrown furniture at her. His behaviour was utterly outrageous, unacceptable and criminal, but, as it occurred in the private home, the remedies open to the woman were not the same as they would have been had he assaulted a total stranger. She came to court with her mother and children.
  The behaviour of her four-year-old boy had to be seen to be believed. He had witnessed his fathers violent behaviour day in and day out, and had clearly learned that might was right. He had no respect for his mother, because his father had no respect for her. He was clearly caught in a cycle of violence, which one suspects will be repeated down the generations. I was told that he was receiving behavioural therapy, but I wonder how successful it will be. He is likely to beat up any woman or women with whom he has a relationship.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who has spoken up in the House on this issue since he was elected at the same time as me. He referred to Edinburgh district councils zero tolerance campaign. Bristol city council is very impressed with the style of the campaign and the way in which information is being conveyed to the public, and is planning a similar campaign.
  In 1993, the Select Committee on Home Affairs reported:
  We recommend that the Home Office and the Lord Chancellors Department fund a campaign designed to raise awareness among the public, and in particular actual and potential perpetrators and victims, of the criminality of domestic violence, the opportunities for redress and the willingness of authorities to treat the matter seriously.
  The Governments action on that recommendation has been found wanting.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the law, and I am delighted that a Bill from another place will consolidate existing legislation, which is confused. The fact that we have any legislation at all is in very great measure due to the sterling work done by the former Member for Barking, Jo Richardson, who was a dear friend to many of us. She was behind the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage

  949
  and the work that led to the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 and the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978.
  One of those Acts covers only married people while the other covers unmarried people, and the injunctions available are different in the two jurisdictions. There is no protection for unmarried people who have to return to their parents homes, and lawyers trying to advise women who suffer domestic violence have to pick their way through a minefield of legislation, which clearly needs consolidation. I hope that the House will take full advantage of the opportunity that is to be provided
  I recently met representatives from Bristol Womens Aid, who made several important points at their annual general meeting. One involved the effect on women of Government cuts in the legal aid budget. While local authorities are trying to disseminate information about the availability of remedies, it is becoming increasingly difficult for women to seek the protection of the courts, because of the unavailability of legal aid. The women referred to refuge provision and the fact that, in 1975, the Select Committee had recommended one place for every 10,000 of the population. We have not reached even a third of that figure.
  The women also talked to me about the need for a co-ordinated approach at local level. We are lucky in Bristol, in that it is an innovative city. It was in Bristol that victim support, health centres and family mediation began, and for a long time we have had a domestic violence forum involving the police, the courts, the local authority, womens organisations and Womens Aid, which give information to protect women who are vulnerable because of their housing arrangements and those who are fleeing domestic violence.
  It is most important that we say that women are not victims, which is the impression given when we deal with the problem by allowing people to flee a violent relationship and then offering them refuge—it is like firefighting. We need strategies that enable women to recognise their own strength, and the fact that they are suffering violence. We should be turning our attention to the aggressors and saying that their behaviour is unacceptable. The more men who say that, the better.
  Women are often told to stay indoors because the streets can be very unsafe, yet a quarter of all recorded crime is in the home. Where are women safe? If they stay indoors, they might run the risk of being beaten up, but on the streets they are frightened of crime.
  It is important to have a co-ordinated approach for women who suffer domestic violence. We must tell men when their behaviour is unacceptable, but, in the meantime, more refuges must be provided. We must support local initiatives that help women and children and educate male perpetrators of domestic violence. This should be at the forefront of public policy, to enable family life to be the example and experience that most of us would wish.
  10.58 am
  Mr. Alun Michael: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on stimulating a debate that has brought into focus the cross-Chamber consensus about the importance of this issue. He made a carefully targeted speech, and gave notice of the serious issues that he
  950
  intended to raise. I shall be brief, in order to give the Minister plenty of time to respond. Domestic violence is a wide topic, but I shall keep to the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) highlighted a series of legal complexities. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will do all they can to simplify the law in this sphere. The legal system should benefit the victims rather than the perpetrators.
  Victims feel that they are at sea in what is virtually a minefield of complexities, and we need to simplify the way in which we deal with such matters. I also agreed very much with my hon. Friends strong point about the need to talk to men, and not only to women, about the issues which are the focus of this debate.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) referred to the Government publicity campaign, which, of course, was one of the recommendations by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. She was right to say that people need to be continually encouraged not to stand for domestic violence, but that message needs to be backed up.
  People need to be confident that, if they choose not to stand for it, the necessary systems will support them and the police, local authorities and voluntary organisations will have the resources as well as the training, the understanding of the problem and the ability to provide help where it is needed. It is a prime example of how central Government need to reward as well as demand co-operation and a partnership approach at local level.
  Since dealing with domestic violence is difficult and complex, time is needed to develop expertise and local strategies, which several hon. Members have said are vital if the problem is to be properly addressed. A fragmentation of responsibilities does not help. People who work in education, social services, housing, health, the police and voluntary organisations all feel under pressure, but they need some flexibility, so that they can spend time listening to the way in which problems arise for other agencies and fully understand how to implement effective strategies.
  It is probably true to say, as I have found, that many hon. Members have been shocked by the experience of dealing with constituency cases of domestic violence. Two things stand out. One is the number of women who continue to suffer in the matrimonial home, long after the situation seems to have become totally unreasonable and unacceptable. They continue to try to maintain the structure of the marriage and the family long beyond what could be expected of them.
  The other aspect is the number of women who leave home and fend for themselves after violence has reached breaking point. Instead of putting themselves at the mercy of different departments and expecting the local authorities or the police to sort out their problems, some women try to fend for themselves and thereby compromise their rights to housing. Following the split of a family, women may find themselves in unsatisfactory housing, being told that they are adequately housed. We need to shift priorities. It is difficult for housing authorities to deal with domestic violence, but in many ways it is a special case, and ways to deal with it should be found.
  As hon. Members of all parties have said, the police take domestic violence much more seriously nowadays. However, on occasions it remains difficult to distinguish

  951
  in practice between domestic disputes in which it may be six of one and half a dozen of the other, and those cases when one of the partners is a vulnerable and damaged victim. Such incidents are very difficult for officers to deal with, and it puts them under great pressure. Officers need training and background in the subject, and they should have the opportunity to give time to such incidents, so that they may understand properly what is happening.
  There have been several references to the work of Womens Aid and the role of refuges. We need to ensure an adequate network of such facilities up and down the country, but we must also understand that we are not just considering temporary or crisis housing—an immediately available roof, important though that it is. Sympathy and support should be given through a traumatic period that may often go on for a considerable time following the short time in a refuge.
  That is a specifically targeted activity, during which knowledge and experience—down-to-earth approaches—are needed. It is a good example of how the voluntary sector has the flexibility to respond often much better then statutory services are able. Support for the voluntary sector needs to be guaranteed and continued, so that services do not become fragmented.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr specifically referred to the way in which victims are treated in court. He was absolutely correct. Often, victims and public-spirited individuals who come forward as witnesses feel that the system damages and violates them a second time.
  Efforts have been made to improve the situation, but victims are still marginal in our courts and criminal justice system, and there is no room for complacency. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment positively on that. If he is able to say that he will press further to make the court and criminal justice system generally more sympathetic to victims, he may be assured of a positive response from the Labour party.
  My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) made a powerful reference to domestic violence as a problem which pervades all classes of society. We need to take that very much to heart. There is still a general impression that violence takes place in only one section of society. He is right to say that examples fall in all parts of society.
  The zero tolerance campaign, to which my hon. Friend referred, is in many ways showing the way forward in raising public awareness, and I commend it. It is a co-ordinated and high-profile approach to informing public opinion. My hon. Friend was absolutely right, however, to go on to say that we need a strategic approach which starts by tackling attitudes in society as a whole, rather than simply saying that domestic violence is some sort of aberration which may be dealt with in isolation.
  I hope that the Minister will also be able to tell us a little about how the Government and his Department intend to press forward with giving effect to the important recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. One of the main recommendations was to upgrade the quality of national statistics on domestic violence. Indeed, the whole question of research is important. It is necessary to conduct research on what works, as well as the nature of the problem, to understand changes and to have the results of that research quickly available to practitioners.
  952
  The Select Committee also placed great stress on the importance of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in discussing questions of poor and good practice and good management with chief officers of police. That needs to be followed through year after year, and not be only a one-off.
  The Committee also recommended learning from good practice; ensuring that domestic violence units are not marginalised in the police force; learning from local approaches such as the experimental domestic violence crisis intervention team that is being established in Islington, to which it specifically referred; and generally disseminating best practice. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that more progress will be made in following through those recommendations, and that inter-agency approaches will be generally encouraged and helped.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr also referred to prosecution. Several Select Committee recommendations referred to the responsibilities of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Committee thought that the CPS should make itself better informed about developments in the area of domestic violence. The Committee specifically recommended that the CPS look at the possibility of duress causing the victim of domestic violence to withdraw the complaint. That is a very important and sensitive area, which my hon. Friend was absolutely right to highlight.
  I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that the Government will take the initiative, linked with the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and agencies, to try to tease out the best way in which to ensure that the law can be changed for the better.
  Intimidation is a problem. We should take great care that we do not go too far, and perhaps force people to pursue complaints that they genuinely wish to withdraw, but also that we shift the balance towards protecting victims and finding how to assemble evidence when intimidation has happened more than once. That is a delicate area that needs to be dealt with, and I hope that the Minister will say that he will take it seriously and develop it for the immediate future.
  I believe that the co-ordinating role of local authorities at chief officer level is right, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr referred specifically to Northampton. It is clear that, where chief officers have taken a specific interest, there has been a shift in attitude and policy within departments. Where councillors have taken a specific interest in the development of policy, that too has produced good results.
  There is a need for independent advice and help. For instance, the Cardiff housing help centre was specifically established to be independent of the housing department, so that it could focus on the interests of the people who came forward.
  I should have liked to develop one more crucial area—the central question of how children are dealt with. But as I said at the outset, I shall be brief, so as to allow the Minister plenty of time to respond. I hope that he will say that he and his departmental colleagues will consider the issue again, and will keep it under review across the Department, encouraging local approaches across organisations, departments and authorities, and assisting in the development of effective strategies at local level to reflect a proper sense of priorities at national level.
  I hope, too, that the Minister will show a full appreciation of the important role that the voluntary sector can play, and of the need for that sector—Womens Aid,

  953
  victim support and other local organisations—to have the continuity and capacity to bring their knowledge and experience to bear for the benefit of victims, and therefore for the benefit of society as a whole in the long term.
  11.11 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on raising such an important subject for debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for allowing me more time to enable me to respond as fully as possible to the subjects raised in the debate.
  Let the House be in no doubt that the Government are in no doubt at all about the seriousness of the problem. Few people realise that domestic violence accounts for a large part of the nations violent crime. The best statistics I have, dating from 1993, show that there were about 197,000 examples of domestic violence within the statistics on violence in general.
  I have listened carefully to the various points made, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out the measures that the Government are taking to tackle that especially appalling crime. As everyone has said, domestic violence should never be tolerated, either by those suffering the violence or by the wider community.
  The effects of domestic violence can be especially devastating, as the suffering endured is often prolonged over many years, at the hands not of a stranger but of someone who is in a relationship with the victim. It is a crime that invariably occurs not out on the streets or in some public place but in the home, where we should all be able to feel safe and secure. The home is not a place where a woman, a child or any of us should feel a sense of danger or terror.
  Clearly, domestic violence involves a combination of physical, emotional, sexual and psychological abuse within a relationship, and can damage both the woman and her children. Victims of domestic violence are usually women, but that is not always the case. In most cases, the perpetrator of the violence will be a spouse, a partner or a former boy friend or girl friend.
  To say that is not, however, to deny the existence of other forms of inter-relationship violence by other family members—for example, fathers, brothers or sons—and, as we know, there are a number of elderly victims. Feelings of guilt, hopelessness, fear and depression are common. Domestic violence is not limited to any particular social group or class, but, as has already been said, occurs across the social spectrum.
  The Government recognise that domestic violence not only causes damage to its immediate victims but may also affect children within the relationship. Children may be at risk of suffering long-term psychological and emotional damage as a result of witnessing the violence perpetrated against their mothers, or of experiencing the stresses and tensions involved in living in an environment where the likelihood of violence is ever present. They may also become victims of violence and abuse themselves. Witnessing domestic violence may also have the effect of teaching children that violence is a legitimate response to problems.
  There have been some calls to amend the Children Act 1989 to create a new category of children in need to encompass children who live in situations of domestic
  954
  violence. I understand, however, that it is not necessary to amend the Act in that way, as each local authority already has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in its area, and evidence of domestic violence may be an indication that a child is in need.
  Schools may address issues of relevance to tackling domestic violence through the national curriculum, through their programmes of sex education, and, in the wider curriculum, through their programmes of personal, social and health education.
  The Government believe that the response to domestic violence needs to involve action on several fronts, directed towards ensuring that the perpetrators are brought to justice, that victims receive the emotional and practical support they require, and that steps are taken, through education and community initiatives, towards prevention in the long term. We believe that effective action requires the commitment and involvement of all local agencies, working together to develop local preventive strategies, and to provide help and support to women suffering from domestic violence.
  In order to co-ordinate an effective and concerted Government response to domestic violence, interdepartmental groups were set up at both official and ministerial level in 1993. The groups set about taking forward the Governments reply to the 1993 Home Affairs Select Committee report on domestic violence.
  The official group has met four times to discuss the key areas of raising public awareness, improving the way in which agencies can respond to those suffering from domestic violence, and refuge provision. I shall talk more about some of those issues later.
  Proposals for increasing public awareness and inter-agency co-operation were endorsed by the ministerial group on domestic violence. Both the official and ministerial groups are due to meet again to examine a range of issues, such as improving the collection of statistics on domestic violence, and the nature and extent of refuge provision. Because of the hidden nature of domestic violence, it is especially difficult to get an exact idea of how many cases exist.
  Of course, to prevent crimes of violence within the home in this and future generations, there is a need to change attitudes and behaviour. It is also clear that effective action extends beyond the criminal justice system. Towards that end, the Government recently funded a domestic violence awareness publicity campaign made up of several strands of action to help those suffering abuse.
  The campaign, which took place last autumn, used the slogan, Domestic Violence—Don't Stand For It, and focused on the criminality of domestic violence and the right of all people to live their lives free of fear and abuse. The message communicated was that domestic violence is first and foremost a crime that should not and will not be tolerated. That message was directed at the victims of domestic violence as well as the perpetrators, to help them realise that they will be taken seriously and that they should seek the help and assistance that is available.
  The campaign was a large one, consisting of 500,000 guidance leaflets and 100,000 indoor posters, which were distributed to voluntary and statutory agencies. A taped version of the guidance leaflet was also produced for the blind and visually handicapped. A short public information film called "Don't Stand For It" was shown

  955
  across 350 cinemas for a period of six weeks, and is estimated to have reached an audience of 1 million viewers.
  The materials used in the campaign all gave details of a telephone helpline. Briefing packs were also prepared for the media, to encourage them to run complementary articles and features. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for drawing attention to the effort that the Government put into that campaign.
  To have an idea of the pay-off, we should have to ask Sir Paul Condon, for example, and he would confirm that, in every division in the Metropolitan police, there is a domestic violence unit, and there has been a large increase in the number of people coming forward to report violence. That is good in itself, but of course the downside is that Sir Pauls figures for violence in the metropolitan area will increase this year. However, we must understand clearly that the good side of those figures is the fact that women are coming forward to report violence that existed before but was not reported.
  As well as getting victims to seek the help they need, we are also encouraging them to work with the criminal justice system to apprehend the perpetrators of these crimes. A number of initiatives have been undertaken to create an effective response to domestic violence, which will engender the confidence needed in victims to come forward.
  Victims are often afraid to come forward in case they will be subjected to further threats and violence. If we are to succeed in combatting domestic violence, we must give victims the confidence to break their silence and help end their personal suffering.
  Those who intimidate witnesses can currently be charged with the common law offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 contains a new offence of intimidating a witness, juror or someone assisting the police. This is designed to deter would-be intimidators, and to make it easier to prosecute those who do intimidate.
  The new offence, which came into force on 3 February this year, will remove the requirement of the existing offence to prove that the intimidation was intended to pervert the course of justice. Under the new offence, offenders could be convicted simply on the basis that they intimidated a person whom they knew to be a witness.
  There are already a number of practical measures in place to protect witnesses from intimidation. For instance, witness addresses are removed as a matter of course from copies of statements passed to the defence. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which reported in 1993, made a number of recommendations designed further to increase support and protection for witnesses.
  Courts should make greater use of their existing powers, to enable statements of witnesses other than the defendant to be read out where the witness is afraid to give oral evidence. The recommendation has been drawn to the attention of all serving judges, and will be used in judicial training seminars. Witnesses who do not wish to have their addresses read out in court—as is the normal practice—should be allowed to hand them in to court or
  956
  be able to use accommodation addresses, with the leave of the court. Courts have the discretion to allow the information to be withheld.
  In cases where the victim fears for his or her personal safety because a defendant is about to be released on bail or following a successful appeal, particular care will be taken. Departments are considering what further steps can be taken on a multi-agency basis to assist victims and witnesses who fear for their personal safety or that of their families.
  Police policy on domestic violence is important, and is based on the premise that assaults within private relationships are no less criminally serious than violence which takes place between strangers out in the street. In July 1990, guidance was issued to the police in England, Wales and Scotland to ensure a quick and effective response to domestic violence, taking into account the overriding needs of the victim. Similar guidance was issued in Northern Ireland in 1991.
  All police forces now have a force policy on domestic violence. The policies emphasise the overriding duty to protect victims and children from further attack, the need to treat domestic violence as seriously as any other form of violence, the use and value of powers of arrest, the dangers of seeking reconciliation between assailant and victim, and the importance of keeping records to monitor the policy in practice.
  Forces throughout the UK were also encouraged to set up dedicated domestic violence units or to appoint officers to deal specifically with domestic violence cases and to liaise with other agencies working in the field.
  The Crown Prosecution Service treats cases of domestic violence seriously. It has also examined its procedures in order to ensure an effective response. In 1993, it updated and published its comprehensive guide issued to staff for dealing with domestic violence cases, and that procedure is again under review and will shortly be updated. The CPS recognises and endorses the principle that violence in a domestic background is not a factor which reduces the seriousness of the offending.
  The CPS does not act directly on behalf of individual victims or represent them in court in the criminal proceedings, because it has to take decisions reflecting the overall public interest, rather than the particular interests of any one person. Nevertheless, Crown prosecutors always think very carefully about the interests of the victim, which are important, when deciding where the public interest lies.
  A vital matter in ensuring that the victims of crime have the necessary confidence in the criminal justice system is the sentencing process. Effective penalties also act as a deterrent to potential offenders. The sentencing decisions of the courts have the capacity to inspire or dilute that confidence. For domestic violence to be seen to be tackled vigorously by the criminal justice system, it is essential that sentencing decisions are based on the premise that assaults within private relationships are no less serious than violence between strangers.
  We are committed to ensuring that the courts have the powers to sentence offenders appropriately. As with other types of crime, custody is appropriate in the most serious cases. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 enables courts to impose a longer sentence upon a violent or sexual offender than is justified by the seriousness of the offence, if such a sentence is necessary to protect the public from harm.

  957
  The Government have also given their support to the increase of the maximum penalty for attempted rape to life imprisonment, and of that for indecent assault on a woman to 10 years. In 1991, the House of Lords confirmed an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal that rape within marriage was unlawful. That ruling is particularly important in enabling the courts to deal with cases of domestic violence, where such cases occur, with the severity they deserve.
  Every effort is being made to ensure that the best use is made of facilities available to accommodate the needs of victims who give evidence in court, particularly in cases of domestic violence where there has been violence or abuse which may have left the witness feeling intimidated or in a vulnerable state. The courts charter, published in November 1992, recognised the needs of potential witnesses who may be apprehensive about appearing in court. The Crown court witness service also plays an important role in supporting the victims of domestic violence. It provides information, advice and emotional support to witnesses attending the Crown court.
  The civil law has a vital role to play in providing those suffering from domestic violence with an effective legal avenue of protection and redress. The Government have recently introduced the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, which is currently receiving detailed consideration by the Special Public Bills Committee in another place. The Bill replaces the piecemeal remedies available under the current statutory framework with a single, consistent set of remedies which will be available to all courts with family jurisdiction.
  Two types of orders will be available—non-molestation orders prohibiting particular behaviour or molestation generally; and occupation orders with a variety of possible terms, either declaratory or regulatory. Those could, for example, define occupation rights in the home, including the exclusion of the respondent from it and, where appropriate, an area around it.
  The orders will be available to a wide range of people within a loosely defined domestic or family relationship. At present, only current spouses and cohabitants can apply for remedies. Under the new Bill, that will be extended to cover former spouses, former cohabitants, certain relatives, others who live or have lived in the same household, parents of a child or in relation to any child, persons who have had parental responsibility for that child, and parties to the same family proceedings.
  Where there has been violence or threatened violence, the court will be required to attach a power of arrest to an order unless the applicant or relevant child would be adequately protected without it. That will reinforce the
  958
  ability of the police to assist in preventing the escalation of violence and the intimidation of the victim. The changes represent not only a clarification of the existing law, but also a strengthening of the civil remedies available for domestic violence.
  As I stated earlier, truly effective action against domestic violence requires the commitment and involvement of local agencies working in concert to develop local preventative strategies and to provide help and support to the victims. The ministerial group on domestic violence has approved proposals for an inter-agency circular on domestic violence, which will be issued shortly to a wide range of statutory and voluntary agencies. It will set out the Governments approach to the issue, and encourage all local agencies to co-ordinate their responses to domestic violence.
  No one agency can meet the needs of those who experience domestic violence. Recent developments, involving co-operation between the police, local authorities and voluntary agencies, have highlighted the importance of inter-agency work as potentially a more effective way of addressing domestic violence.
  In particular, the establishment of a local domestic violence forum—whereby representatives from a range of services in both the statutory and voluntary sectors come together at the local level to provide the necessary services and support of the local community—represents one model through which to focus inter-agency efforts to improve support and services for women experiencing domestic violence, and also for co-ordinating resources for men to stop using violence.
  The Home Office programme development unit is currently funding several innovative projects, looking at the potential of treatment programmes for offenders. The aim of the experimental approaches being taken is to find out what approaches are the most effective in tackling domestic violence.
  Research and evaluation are important. That evaluation is taking place in the court-ordered Change and Lothian treatment programmes—that is the Dobash report. The results of the evaluation are currently being considered, and will provide much-needed information on the efficacy of treatment programmes for men who are violent.
  The range of measures being taken forward by the Government to tackle domestic violence, which I have outlined, reaffirms our commitment to effectively responding to this most distressing of crimes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We now move to the debate on the future of Guys hospital.

Guys Hospital
11.30 am
Mr. Roger Sims: Thirteen months ago, the Secretary of State for Health announced, in the context of the Tomlinson report, her strategic direction in respect of the future disposition of services on the two sites owned by the Guys and St. Thomass Hospital trust. The trust subsequently made its proposals, which have been considered by the local health commission and the regional health authority and now sit on the Secretary of States desk awaiting a decision. In making that decision, she will be advised by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, to whom I am grateful for attending this debate to listen to what I and others have to say before finalising his views.
Discussions on how services should be rationalised between the two hospitals predated the report of the Tomlinson inquiry, which considered the provision of medical services in London as a whole. Unfortunately, the administrative and clinical staff of the two hospitals had difficulties in reaching a consensus. I give credit to the Secretary of State for at least seeking to grasp the nettle in making a statement on 10 February 1994, in which she said:
We therefore intend to ask the trust to pursue proposals that, over time, will concentrate acute and specialist hospital services at the St. Thomass site.—[Official Report, 10 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 460.]
She went on to propose that Guys should be used almost exclusively for teaching and research.
The reaction to her announcement was immediate: from consultants, some of whom were my constituents; from people living in the vicinity of Guys; and from patients and ex-patients of the hospital, some of whom were also my constituents. Following that, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in whose constituency Guys hospital lies, called together a group of interested people, formed the Save Guys Hospital campaign, and invited the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) and me to join him as co-chairmen.
The campaign management group consists of doctors, nurses, patients representatives, a solicitor, trade unionists and others, of all political persuasions and of none, united in their concern about the hospital. May I record my respect for the work of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who has, primus inter pares of the chairmen, conducted the affairs of a disparate group with considerable diligence and diplomacy, enabling its members to work well together?
The more I became involved with the group, the more I became convinced that the information on which the Secretary of States decision was based was inaccurate and inadequate. My personal concerns—other hon. Members will no doubt express their worries—stemmed from three aspects.
First, the accident and emergency service at Guys is currently much used by local people; other hon. Members will certainly wish to refer to that dimension. In addition, however, there is a commuter population of some 300,000 people who work each day in the City. Inevitably, among them accidents, emergencies and illnesses occur daily, not to mention the possibility of large-scale incidents such as the Cannon street rail crash or terrorist outrages, both of which the City has experienced in recent years. With the Barts service now closed, it is essential that the City has an easily accessible A and E department.
960
Secondly, Guys has a number of important specialist services such as oncology, cardiac, renal, neurology, ophthalmology, and ear, nose and throat, to which thousands of patients throughout south-east London—indeed, south-east England as a whole—are referred by their GPs. For them, Guys is extremely conveniently placed in terms of public transport, as it is literally on the doorstep of London Bridge station and the bus station. Ease of access is important for patients, but equally so for relatives who wish to visit. No other hospital—certainly not St. Thomass—is as easily accessible.
Thirdly, earlier plans for developing Guys included the construction of Philip Harris house, partly funded from charitable sources. It was planned, designed and built to house the specialist services to which I referred, equipped with the latest technology, and has just been completed at a cost of £154 million. It is incomprehensible that it should not be used for the purposes for which it was intended.
May I make it clear that, while the Save Guys Hospital campaigns purpose has been and continues to be to retain Guys as a viable hospital, it is in no sense antagonistic towards St. Thomass? The issue is the most cost-effective allocation of resources between the sites and the distribution of services between the hospitals, which will provide the greatest benefit to patients.
The campaign group examined in detail the facts and figures pertaining to both hospitals and the implications of the Secretary of States instruction. To assist in that analysis, it commissioned KPMG, which produced a thorough report incorporating alternative proposals, which were clinically coherent, carefully costed and involved less capital expenditure. The campaign group drew on that report in submitting its observations and alternative proposals to the hospital trust.
In due course, the hospital trust issued its proposals, which were to close Guys A and E; to bring together most of the specialist clinical departments on the St. Thomass site; to develop a centre at Guys for day surgery and day treatment; and to bring together the medical and dental schools and Kings college on the Guys site. What the trust effectively proposed, therefore, was to close the A and E department at Guys altogether and gradually transfer most specialties to St. Thomass while producing at the Guys site a centre for what was described as planned surgery, which would be without any back-up facilities such as intensive care—a proposition that much clinical opinion believes to be unsafe. By implication, the trust rejected the KPMG plans and the campaigns variation on them, although it did not argue them in detail.
Those proposals then went to the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health commission, which clearly considered the objections that had been made to it. It effectively decided that the proposals should be implemented, but over a period of five to seven years rather than four. Its recommendation was that the A and E department should be kept open until 31 December 1998 and should not be closed until the expansion plans for the Kings, Lewisham and St. Thomass hospital site were in place, until the London ambulance service was meeting acceptable standards and until the programme to improve primary and community care services in Bermondsey, Rotherhithe and north Southwark had been implemented.

961
It recommended that plans to bring together most of the services currently on the two sites on to the St. Thomass site should proceed, as should developing day surgery at Guys, but that such implementation should be spread over a period of up to seven years and that the trust should be provided with additional funds to facilitate that.
When those recommendations were passed to the South Regional health authority, it did little more than endorse them. In a letter to some of my hon. Friends, the Minister says that it did so after detailed consideration, but I question that assertion. The members of the authority were given only a brief summary of the consultation process and its outcome and, in his report to the authority, the regional director advised members that
no credible alternative plans were put forward during consultation.
The KPMG plans may well be susceptible to criticism, but to dismiss them by implication as incredible was surely grossly irresponsible. It is worth pointing out that members of the authority were not given an opportunity to study them until the last minute.
The regional director said that the commissions proposal is
responsive to the concerns raised and proposes a timescale which acknowledges local or public anxieties.
I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will similarly acknowledge those anxieties, which were reflected in the response to the consultation process.
Sir John Gorst: Will my hon. Friend advise the House on one specific matter? Guys has, to my knowledge, a reputation for being a centre of excellence, mainly because of its pioneering work in many fields—research, development and so on. Is such history and experience transferable from one hospital on the Guys site to St. Thomass, or is there likely to be any loss in the process?
Mr. Sims: I suppose that in theory anything is transferable, but surely there must be some loss of quality and of personnel if one starts shifting well-established centres from one site to another.
Sir John Gorst: Has that been considered?
Mr. Sims: It was certainly considered by the campaign group. I hope that it is being considered by the Minister and the Secretary of State.
I was referring to the consultation process. In the course of it, a petition raised by the campaign attracted many more than 1 million signatures and was presented to the House a few weeks ago; another, in similar terms, organised by Unison, bore 30,000 names. In addition, 350 individual letters were written objecting to the plans, compared with 23 in support, and 3,000 standard letters of objection were submitted.
Nowhere in the documents is reference made to the reaction from overseas, where there are many doctors who trained as students or postgraduates at Guys. Earlier this week, I handed the Prime Minister a folder containing 184 letters from distinguished clinicians throughout the world expressing alarm and astonishment at the implication of the closure proposals.
I have not sought the debate to suggest to the Secretary of State or the Minister that the recommendations should be rejected in toto and that we return to square one, but I invite him to recognise their considerable implications and to modify them substantially.
962
Is it logical, having accepted that the A and E department at Guys cannot be closed in the next year or two, to say that it is to be closed at the end of 1998? If it is unsafe to close it now, surely it is unwise to specify that it will close in less than four years time. It is not difficult to visualise the blighting effect that that will have on A and E and on other services, which will begin to decline, will lose members from the expert clinical teams there and find recruitment of the best people impossible. Surely it would be sensible simply to say that the A and E department will remain open and work normally and that its future will be reviewed in a few years time in the light of circumstances then prevailing—circumstances that cannot, at the moment, possibly be foreseen.
How can concentrating specialties on the St. Thomass site, at an estimated cost for additional building of £54 million, be justified when Phillip Harris house, already completed at a cost of £154 million and incorporating the latest medical technology for renal, oncology, cardiac and neurology services, is not to be used to the full? Incidentally, if it is not so used, the future of the £25 million charity money donated for the building is, to put it no higher, uncertain.
The proposal is even more difficult to justify now that we know that the United medical and dental school and Kings college London will not need all the space allocated to them at Guys. Surely the space use needs to be re-assessed. What is needed is to devise a technically and clinically coherent and cost-effective solution that would provide specialist services on both sites but with minimal duplication.
The status quo, to coin a phrase, is not an option. Change is inevitable—indeed, essential—but it must be realistic, it must be orderly and it must ensure that the best possible use is made of the two sites, of the existing buildings and of limited financial resources in the interests of those for whom the two hospitals, and indeed the national health service, primarily exist—patients.
I earnestly plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to consider most carefully all that I have said and the words of those who follow me before reaching any conclusions on these difficult and important issues. I thank him for the time and energy that I know he has already devoted to them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I make a plea for relatively short speeches.
11.45 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for requesting, and securing, a debate.
I do not want the debate to sound like a mutual support society, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for all that he has done and for the clear way in which he made the case. Colleagues on the Opposition Benches have been equally clear and supportive in arguing not from rhetoric or from general proposition but about the case.
I know that, since the Minister took over his job, he has been diligent. He has visited the hospital; he kindly invited me to be with him. He has briefed himself about the position, and we are entirely happy that he is doing

963
the proper job of listening before he takes his decision. I have no criticism of him and hope that we are able to help the process.
Indeed—unusually—the process is, in that respect, working properly, in the sense that the commission carried out the public consultation, it reported, it made some recommendations, which went to region, region considered them and added some riders in its covering letter and the matter is now being debated here before a decision is taken. The process is at least being democratised at its last round.
That is very important because, as the hon. Member for Chislehurst said, and as the Minister knows well, it is not a matter of interest only to those who live and work in the neighbourhood of Guys hospital, whom I represent. It is not of interest only to those who have links with Guys, either as staff or as former staff and patients; it is of much wider interest.
I am grateful to many colleagues who are in the House now and in the other place, and to some who are not here, who have expressed their anxiety and support and kept themselves interested and briefed. There is an army of people—parliamentarians present and past, including Health Ministers from both sides of the House—who have ensured that the case for retaining a viable hospital at Guys is made. That is very important.
The public are also sure about that. One of the largest petitions ever presented to the House was delivered a few weeks ago, bearing more than I million signatures. Signatures are continuing to come in, so a supplementary presentation may have to be made to ensure that no ones signature is excluded; several hundred thousand signatures may be added by the time the Minister and the Secretary of State take a decision.
I want to discuss what appear to me to be the arguments around which the matter is now resolving. The recommendations made by the region gave five reasons for the need for change. In relation to four of them I, at least, do not dissent. It is clear that hospital doctors should work in larger teams and see more patients, that junior doctors hours of work should be reduced and that safer care should be provided. That does not mean to say that we should move immediately to large teams of doctors working in a small number of huge hospitals.
One question is whether a very large consolidated accident and emergency department—whether it be situated on the Guys or the St. Thomass site—could cope not only with patient admissions but with on-going treatment once they are transferred. The Minister is aware of evidence that suggests that existing accident and emergency units—including that at Tommys—already have difficulty coping with the number of patients who are treated there. If the department were to be doubled in size, it is at least questionable whether it would be able to cope with the demand.
There is no theoretical accuracy about the correct size for a hospital. There are trends and movements in particular directions, but the advice changes from decade to decade. We thought that cottage hospitals should be abolished 20 years ago, so we moved to more acute care-centred hospitals. We are now returning to the development of community care beds for small operations. We must not believe that medical science and its management is written in stone for generations to come.
964
We must, of course, take account of the fact that advances in medical treatment and technology are changing the way in which hospitals work. I underline the point that the hon. Member for Chislehurst made in that regard. It seems to most people, and certainly to the individuals and charities who donated the money, nonsense to develop a state-of-the-art building in the national health service in a wonderfully accessible location and then either not use it, or not use most of it, for the purpose for which it was specifically built.
As I was going through my papers last night, I came across the leaflet that I was given when I attended the topping-out ceremony at Philip Harris house in July 1981, which features various photographs with quotes underneath. Under a photograph of the Prime Minister, it says:
I am delighted to have the opportunity to congratulate all those involved in this exciting venture at Guys Hospital. Philip Harris House will be a significant addition to the already high standard of services available at Guys and in the National Health Service generally.
I send my best wishes to Guys Hospital and especially to all those who will be treated and will work in Philip Harris House.
I say amen to that.
I hope that many people will be treated and will work at Philip Harris house. I know that most people think that the £154 million—£25 million of which was charitably raised, apart from the money from special trustees—was committed to that concept and to performing that task. Regardless of the other decisions involved, I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to confirm that Philip Harris house will be a fixed point for both out-patient care—it is very close to London Bridge station—and the specialist care for which it was designed.
This is the logical place to make the further point to which the hon. Member for Chislehurst referred briefly and upon which I shall elaborate. One of the difficulties involved with the decision-making process—having followed the process from the beginning, I entirely understand that difficulty—is that the facts, figures and evidence keep changing. Whatever we think about the Tomlinson report and the way in which Tomlinson arrived at his findings, it is beyond dispute that more statistics and different facts have come to light since the compilation of that report. It is beyond dispute that the evidence in favour of retaining the accident and emergency department at Guys hospital has changed too. It has been sufficiently persuasive to convince the commission that it would be impossible to go ahead with the original plan to run down the service from next year.
Two very significant further late changes have occurred which have not been the subject either of consultation or of detailed deliberation by the commission or the region in addition to all the evidence about accident and emergency patterns of referral. First, the balance of argument appears to be changing in the continuing debate about neuroscience and neurosurgery. I attended the regional health authority meeting, at which I detected that its members understood that circumstances were changing almost literally before their eyes.
Secondly, there is also a hugely important variation in the plans of Kings college London and the medical and dental school. For those who have not followed all the debate, the whole exercise was concocted to try to work out a way of reconciling the academic and research interests of the United medical and dental school—which is in the process

965
of amalgamating with the Kings College medical and dental school if this gains assent—and consolidating various departments from Kings college London. No one has opposed consolidating those departments, but I understand that Kings college has now said that it does not need as much space as it originally thought.
New Guys house, one of the new buildings, and Guys tower, another of the new buildings, together with Philip Harris house, make up the triangle of post-war redevelopment of the site. When Philip Harris house opens this year, the older buildings—such as Hunts house, which no one wants to occupy—can be demolished. If there is a different space requirement for the academic component, some people will have to decide how to use that space in an integrated way before we reach decisions about the rest of the space. The hon. Member for Chislehurst made the point, and I emphasise it, that it is no use arguing in favour of spending £54 million on new building works or on extensive rebuilding when space for the health service is now available because it is not needed for academic use.
I urge the Minister to conclude that, in relation to buildings and capital and plant investment, it is logical to use the newest building, Philip Harris house, and its linked buildings, Guys tower and the new Guys house, not just for out-patient care or for non-urgent admissions from the local community but as back-up, which will be needed if the provision of elective beds and specialist services is to be safe. Thereafter, Ministers must decide the difficult question of which specialties will be located on which site.
The Government must confirm the maximum amount of money that is available. The commission has asked for more money and it is absolutely clear that the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area needs more funding for health care. The Government must agree whether the commissions requested parameters are appropriate and whether the budget total is correct. Having done that, Government should be able to allow the commission and the trust to work out the best disposition of services.
Ministers do not have to worry about the detail of the arrangements; that should not be a matter for central Government. It should be negotiated by the local trust, which was set up by the Government, and by the local commission. The Government should take the strategic decisions, and I think that there are only one or two key strategic questions which Ministers must resolve.
The first question is whether the accident and emergency unit should be approved for closure not before 31 December 1998; and, secondly, how to use the main buildings, including those that will become available. The right decision would ensure that the beds and specialties appropriate to Guys could be consolidated on one site without duplication, while the others appropriate to St. Thomass would be located there. That must be achieved in a cost-effective manner; I am not arguing that we should waste any money at all.
There is a critical point at which a hospital becomes viable or non-viable. The key to its success is the retention of a casualty department and of a significant number of beds for specialty treatment. There is a postscript to that: if a hospital is to be a major teaching and research centre, it is nonsense not to have people treated on the same site as the students and their teachers are located so that students can have the benefit of practical as well as theoretical teaching.
966
I conclude with two requests to the Minister and a short final point. I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Chislehurst, but I shall put it slightly differently. If the Government were to follow the recommendation of the commission and say that it is necessary to make the strategic decision now that the accident and emergency department at Guys will close no earlier than 1999, that would be the worst of all possible worlds. Nobody believes that it is possible to close it now. Neither the commission nor the region has argued that it is possible.
It may be possible in some years to come, however, to have fewer accident and emergency departments in south-east London, in south London and in London as a whole. I accept that the trend may be in that direction, but if we are to look after people, treat them properly and prevent them from dying, it is absolutely vital that we do not risk their lives and treatment by closing the hospital too early or, equally bad, by announcing now that we can be certain that we will not need the hospital in four or five years time.
Perhaps it is a little mischievous, but I hope it is an accurate parallel to say that, if the Prime Minister and his Ministers say that it is impossible to judge now whether we should join the common European currency in some years time because the circumstances of the late 1990s or the next decade are not predictable, it is equally impossible to argue that we will or will not need an accident or emergency department at Guys hospital in 1999 or the year 2000, because we do not have enough certain clues about what the demand or pattern of referral will be. We do not know what the implications of the closure of Barts or what the pattern of referral around London will be. In any event, in recent years the number of people being referred has gone up, not down.
I ask the Government: please do not make a decision that will produce four, five or six years of blight when it might have to be further revised. Once such a decision has been made, we cannot expect staff morale or requirement to be sustained.
Secondly, it is important to achieve the best possible use of physical resources and consider whether there is a case for a second phase review—in 1998 or later. When the developments at Kings, Tommys, Lewisham and the Queen Elizabeth hospital, among others, have been completed, let us examine the position again. Of course health provision should always be under review, but we should also always ensure that the buildings used for in-patient care have the most clinically coherent patterns of use.
I am not an expert—there are plenty of experts in both hospitals and in other places. The present muddle is based on two simple historical facts. First, it is a difficult set of decisions to make and, secondly—the Minister knows this—the process from the beginning has not been managed in a way that has carried the confidence of those working on both sites. That is a prerequisite to the satisfactory delivery of a solution.
I believe that there is sufficient good will in the staff of Guys and Thomass, in the commission and in local communities to consolidate a sensible pattern of health care delivery over the next four or five years, developing primary care and transferring resources without putting people at risk.
The postscript is this: a paper presented to the commission made it clear that the current proposals actually risked making the health care of people in my part of the world worse. The House should not be asking

967
or allowing the Minister to go ahead with any decision that makes the health care of any part of our community worse, even in the short or medium-term in terms of risk, access or availability.
We have here a golden opportunity for a brilliant development with the best buildings and treatment in the world. It is an opportunity for Ministers to make a bold decision. I hope they do not make a decision that closes down services that not only we may need for many years to come, but also which, once closed, can never be reopened.
12.4 pm
Sir Gerard Vaughan: I shall speak briefly and with an eye on the clock as I know that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. That does not mean that I do not regard the subject as extremely important. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on their contributions to the debate, and I appreciate the difficulties that face the Minister.
One of the things that I have noticed since I have been in Parliament is that British bureaucracy—certainly in our parliamentary procedures—collects together information, reaches decisions and policies and then, when the information changes, finds it almost impossible to change those policies. I suggest to the Minister that that is exactly what is happening over Guys. Practically all the information on which the original decisions were made has now turned out to be either faulty or irrelevant. From the size of the petition and the tremendously effective campaign to save Guys hospital, there is no doubt about the strength of the anxiety about what is happening.
I would like to put four points to the Minister. First, it seems that there has been no consideration of the international implications of what is happening to Guys hospital. We have very few truly international hospitals in Britain and Guys hospital is one of them. Its standing was certainly, until recently, equal to that of the Johns Hopkins in the United States. International status brings a large number of indirect rewards to Britain in terms of clinical excellence and exchanges of procedures and ideas. It is difficult to measure, but it is very real.
In that context, Guys hospital is not only a London hospital; it is certainly not a community hospital. It is a national hospital as well as being international. We would be taking a very sad step in Britain and in Parliament if we were to discount those aspects of what has gone on at Guys.
Sir John Gorst: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that, because it is an international hospital, perhaps it would be possible to fund the hospital partly by charging international patients making use of its facilities?
Sir Gerard Vaughan: I do not think that the Government have seriously considered that possibility. I raised the international aspect because I did not think that the Government had considered it.
Secondly, it has been mentioned that there has been huge investment in the hospital very recently and it would be scandalous to throw that away.
968
Thirdly, there is also the problem of transferring clinical teams. People who have not worked in a hospital environment probably do not understand—we have had a number of examples in other parts of London—that clinical teams are built up over many years. Not just the surgeon and the theatre nurses, but all the back-up staff have to be trained, including those in the radiology and pathology departments. We have had disastrous examples of trying to transfer specialist teams to other hospitals. It is not possible to pick them up like the pieces on the chessboard and shift them around without examining the chessboard and trying to retain it. My hon. Friend the Minister may not have taken that into consideration.
Reference has already been made to population. We have a huge development in the channel tunnel. As a result of that, the use of Waterloo station and the surrounding area—and therefore St. Thomass hospital—is likely to change radically, but even more so, we know that the use of London Bridge and north Kent will change radically with the development of the London-north Kent links with the new channel rail. That has not been taken into consideration—and, indeed, as has been said, how can we forecast the population changes that may take place in the next few years?
Serious criticisms are being made about the trust. I am not in a position to know whether they are valid, but it worries me to hear that the trust is out of touch, complacent and not receptive to other points of view because it is so certain that it is right. I do not want to do the chief executive an injustice, but at a meeting that I attended the other day he did not seem to understand what modern patient care and clinical services were really about. Admittedly, he has many other issues to consider.
If my hon. Friend the Minister is informed of changes, he should have the courage—I know that he is a man of courage—to take them into account, and re-examine the proposals for one of our greatest international hospitals—indeed, I would suggest, the greatest.
12.10 pm
Ms Tessa Jowell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on securing an important debate at a critical stage, when the future of Guys is being decided. I also pay tribute to the efforts of the Save Guys campaign, a remarkably widespread campaign which has brought together representatives of the local community—through the SICK campaign—hospital trade unions, consultants and patients. As has already been pointed out, its cross-party co-chairing means that it is not a political organisation. It has brought together hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country, who signed one of the largest petitions ever received by Parliament and who are united in their appreciation of the history of Guys and their determination to ensure its survival.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, recently visited the hospital, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and I did so last week. We were able to see the new developments at Philip Harris house at first hand, and to discuss the position with the Save Guys campaign.
Since the original announcement on 10 February last year that Guys was to be run down, the campaign to save it has progressed by small steps. I pay tribute to the

969
diligence with which the health authority conducted its consultations: that demonstrated its determination to secure the views of local people and organisations. We in the Save Guys campaign were not satisfied that its recommendations went far enough, but even the health commission—which had been given a job to do—had to be persuaded, at the many local meetings that it organised, by overwhelming evidence of the backing for the hospital. It was also persuaded by submissions that it received: I believe that only 23 out of many thousands supported the proposals to run down the hospital.
Let me stress—as other hon. Members have—just what saving Guys means. It means lifting the date for the closure of the accident and emergency unit, and commissioning and putting into use state-of-the-art facilities that hon. Members have already described in detail at Philip Harris house. That should be done now, not immediately prior to closure. It also means maintaining the capacity of a district general hospital, available to serve whatever needs the local population may have. The hospital must have the necessary support to back up its accident and emergency unit and intensive care services. That is what it will take to ensure the survival of a thriving hospital.
As others have made clear, no one is suggesting that the future of Guys, or indeed any other hospital, should be set in stone. Of course the provision of services must reflect changes in the local community and medical advance; apprehension about the proposals is caused by the fact that they are based on belief rather than proven fact about the effectiveness of the alternatives. The work load of the accident and emergency unit has been greatly increased as a result of the closure of the A and E unit at Barts: fairly minor injuries have already had to be referred to Guys because they were not within the scope of the minor injuries unit at Barts.
Recent work by the Kings Fund suggests that there is no evidence that investment in primary care in south-east London has begun to yield any measurable improvement—any reduction in the number of single-handed practices, and access to a wider range of professionals beyond general practitioners. We want alternatives to be put in place, and their effectiveness clearly established, before the future of Guys is put at risk. That is a simple demand, but if the Minister responds to it we shall have proof that he has listened to the many recommendations made, not just in south-east London, but by hon. Members throughout the country.
12.18 pm
Mr. James Couchman: Like other hon. Members, I shall be brief. I congratulate both my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who spoke very sensibly about a sensitive issue.
I admit to being un undying fan of Guys hospital, not least because my wife—who was extremely ill five years ago with two episodes of cancer—was so well treated in what is undoubtedly—as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) has said—a world centre of excellence. It would be a great shame if Guys hospital died by a process of attrition and blight. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that the decision to close the hospitals accident and
970
emergency department would be premature, although there may ultimately have to be a concentration of AED services in south-east London.
I have been involved in health service management since 1974, first as a member of Greenwich and Bexley area health authority, then as chairman of Bexley health authority. During the time that I served them, I bemoaned salami slicing by South-East Thames regional health authority, to concentrate resources on the three big inner-city hospitals—Kings, St. Thomass and Guys. I argued with successive Secretaries of State and Ministers of State for rationalisation, if services in the outer-London ring and beyond were to develop in a way that was fair and proper to its population. I am grateful to Ministers for listening and for voting a £45 million redevelopment of services on the Medway hospital site in Gillingham.
That hospital currently has associate university status with St. Thomass because there are not enough patients at the latter hospital with day-to-day, secondary care illnesses for medical students to gain experience. At any one time on the Medway site, some 40 medical students are gaining clinical experience and training, drawing on a substantial population 35 miles from central London.
The decision in February 1994 to concentrate clinical facilities on the St. Thomass site staggered me. Some facilities at Guys are dreadful. Its out-patients department must be one of the worst, but to abandon the facilities in New Guys house, the tower and Philip Harris house—which I have yet to see—would be a crying shame and would call into question the judgment used. Hunts house, which is dreadful and should be knocked down, could provide a site for additional clinical facilities. I have always wondered how one could concentrate all clinical facilities from the two hospitals on a congested site across the river at St. Thomass, with the problems associated with listed buildings—I believe that they are referred to as the Nightingale blocks—and finding suitable space to develop new facilities to replace those at Guys.
I congratulate again my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst on initiating this debate. I hope that the cry from outer London and from out of London—access to Guys from Kent is vastly superior to access to the Waterloo station area—will be heard. There should be a complete review of the decision to run down Guys in favour of concentrating clinical services at St. Thomass.
12.23 pm
Ms Harriet Harman: I join in the thanks expressed by other hon. Members to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for instigating this debate. I fully support the comments by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell). The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) spoke not only of the needs of his constituents, but of the treatment received at Guys by a member of his family. I have had good experiences of treatment at Guys—my three children were born there. The out-patient department may be in lousy buildings, but one receives first-class treatment, in which one can have complete confidence. The same is true of Guys accident and emergency department.
A storm of anger and fear was created by the Secretary of States proposals to close Guys. The Save Guys campaign has done a great job, but no campaign can go anywhere unless it strikes a chord with the public. There

971
is huge public concern locally, regionally and nationally. In my constituency, people have queued in the rain in shopping centres to sign the petition to save Guys because many of them—like me and the hon. Member for Gillingham—are grateful for the treatment that they received at the hospital, and want it to remain in existence. Also, the public are fearful of what will happen if its services are no longer available. My constituents feel anger at the Governments action in threatening that important hospital and fear the consequences if the Government blunder on in the way they have.
There are three large teaching hospitals in south-east London—Kings, St. Thomass and Guys. That may seem a lot, but still people have to queue for beds for non-emergency in-patient treatment. Patients are still told, We had not planned to discharge you until tomorrow but do you mind going now? In fact, right away—someone downstairs is waiting for your bed. Patients get the feeling that they are being discharged before doctors and nurses think that they are ready to leave, just because there is pressure on the availability of beds.
There are also queues in accident and emergency departments. I have referred to the health service ombudsman numerous cases of people who were left on trolleys waiting to be seen. Despite that pressure on facilities, the Government are saying that they want to close one of those three hospitals.
Guys provides much-needed local services to my constituents, a high proportion of whom are unemployed, or on low pay or live in poverty. First-class, high-quality in-patient services are a way of redressing deprivation in inner-city areas. Nothing should be taken away that would multiply the disadvantages and deprivation that are concentrated there.
My constituents and I also recognise that Guys has never been just a local facility but a regional and national centre of excellence. The public vote with their feet. If one asks a mum or dad sitting by a child's bed in Guys where they come from, they may say Canterbury or Maidstone, but they might come from Brighton—referred by their local hospital because it wants to see whether more progress can be made by sending its patient to Guy's. To tell the public that they cannot receive the excellent specialised services available at Guys is dramatically and wrongly to put the cart before the horse.
My constituents also value Guys because they do not have to travel far if something is badly wrong with them. At present, access to regional services and national specialties are on their doorstep. We value the fact that these local, regional and national services are offered by Guys hospital.
Teaching and research are also important. My constituents know, when they go to Guys, that they are at the leading edge of the science of medicine. Even though they may be unemployed people or single parents from council estates, they know that they are getting internationally recognised first-rate services, and they value that enormously. They do not want the Government to mess it up or take it away.
Why are the Government doing this? There is no consensus that it is being done to improve services—the Government have not made the case for that. The amount of money that may be saved is also highly dubious. In 1991 I attended the topping-out ceremony at Philip Harris house.
972
The champagne corks were popping; people said that I was guilty of sour grapes and asked why I was always so gloomy and negative. This was just at the time when the idea of the internal market was being developed. I suggested that the building might look more like an office block when all was said and done. The harbingers of the problems to do with the internal market were already present, even as people were celebrating the topping out of Philip Harris house. It is a scandalous waste of resources—the very opposite of good planning—that the house, with its intensive care unit, should not be used.
Ronald McDonald house has pioneered opportunities for families of children who are acutely ill to stay near them while they undergo long treatment. Anyone who has been to McDonalds for a hamburger and put money into the collection for Ronald McDonald house will be scandalised if the nearby hospital disappears. That is an abdication of all good planning principles.
Charitable money was also raised for Philip Harris house, and charities have often pitched in to help to build the infrastructure that is needed.
The case has not been made, either, for saying that there are too many beds in south-east London. The information to that effect put out by the Government never chimed with peoples experience. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich on the Health Select Committee; she tabled a great many parliamentary questions, the answers to which revealed that it was not sound to allege that there were too many beds in London. Peoples personal experience of the shortage of beds is truer than the Governments inaccurate figures.
One argument says that, when the GP services become truly wonderful, there will be less use of accident and emergency services. I know from personal experience of the A and E department at Guys and at Kings that many people, had they had a first-rate GP service, would not have gone to the A and E unit. When their children are ill in the middle of the night, they know that someone from a deputising service for the group practice will come and tell them that he does not know what is wrong—You had better go to hospital. Knowing that that will happen anyway, people go straight to the hospital. It is therefore to put the cart before the horse to start talking about closing A and E departments.
Certainly, GP services are being improved—I pay tribute to that fact—but they still have a long way to go. If people lack the necessary primary care services, they still need somewhere to go. We cannot just leave them to it, saying that this use is inappropriate.
My metaphor about putting the cart before the horse also applies to community care services. Granted, there has been an effort to improve them, but it is quite wrong to suggest that we can dramatically reduce the number of beds because everything has been sorted out in primary and community care. People know that the facts are rather different.
Everyone is in favour of the sensible organisation of specialist services. We all know about scientific economies of scale—getting people together doing the same thing and seeing as many patients as possible, so that they become experts. No one is asking for the equivalent of a proliferation of cottage hospitals. We want these specialist services, and we accept that they must be organised as rationally as possible. No one wants services to be duplicated—but that is not what we suggest. We are talking about closures and cuts in bed numbers and A and E services.

973
I pay tribute to the staff who, over the years, have treated me and my children and helped us through child births and various childhood ailments. I also pay tribute to the staff for their work with my constituents—it is immensely valued by the people of Peckham. The staffs morale is still high; despite all the to-ings and fro-ings of the Government, they continue to keep their services going and to keep pushing ahead. It is extraordinary, given what the Government have been doing, that they can still recruit people and push back the frontiers of medicine.
I ask the Minister to tell the Secretary of State not to let down my constituents or the people who work in Guys. He must not let down the people of Southwark, or the people in the region who use the hospital, or the people all over the country who need Guys specialties. The Secretary of State must recognise that it has been a chronic and gross error to suggest the closure of Guys. The Secretary of State has got it wrong and must think again.
12.35 pm
Miss Emma Nicholson: I offer a warm vote of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and his colleagues in the Save Guys campaign. I am especially grateful to him for allowing me a few moments to speak this morning. These debates are hard won, and many people want to speak about Guys hospital.
I speak as a parent of a boy patient who has been at the plastic surgery unit since 1991. I brought Amar to the United Kingdom as a guest visitor, and he had 45 per cent. third degree burns. We ran a public appeal to raise money for him and to get surgery offered free or at low cost. Hospitals around the world came forward—in Scandinavia, the USA, Germany and all over the United Kingdom. Why did we choose Guys hospital? Only Guys was able to give me costs and budgets. I learned then that it was the flagship of the Governments most crucial and necessary health reforms.
Sir Philip Harris, chairman, who later gave so much money for the house named after him, explained to me what the hospital could and could not do. Most important of all, the plastic surgery team, comprising Tony Rowsell, John Clark and David Gateby, came forward. With proper costings and budgets, and with some money given by the British public, I used their services.
I became very familiar with the Rothschild children's ward—the long, weary hours watching dying babies, their parents, and the pain of so many people. I watched the mothers smoking all night, waiting and sleeping there. I saw the borrowing of beds and watched the play leaders and the nurses with their tender loving care. There is a classroom at the end of the ward, and visiting hours are critical. In some strange way, all roads and railway lines seem to lead to Guys hospital. I became very conscious of the gratitude that all who use Guy's services feel—gratitude so profound that it is almost inexpressible.
I and other colleagues have also been involved with another case at the hospital. I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for Romanian children; to my fellow trustee, the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell); to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), a committee member; and to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
974
Guys has been treating a boy called Adrian Vlad, who is doubly incontinent and has suffered from that impossible condition since birth. Twenty operations in Romania had significantly worsened his condition. The stench that he brought with him was unbearable. Surgeons at Guy's gave him a 10-hour operation, which was followed up by the home care of Tony Rowsell and his wife. The boys life has been transformed.
Guys is a specialist hospital, one that happens to be located in south London, and twinned—through its geography, I suggest—with St. Thomass, under a single trust. Therein lies its misfortune, because Guys specialism, as I perceive it, has naturally grown up alongside the provision of a substantial local medical service, the volume and excellence of which seem to have dominated the necessary and present arguments on the proper place of costs and benefits of the provision of primary health care to the local community.
Of course the Government are right to do all within their powers, which in this instance are not just considerable but near total, to persuade the population, not just in south London but throughout the United Kingdom, to transfer to GP surgeries their significant overuse of A and E facilities for minor medical matters that are really of the preventive and GP-curable kind. Indeed, in Exeter recently, during a bank holiday, I saw that more than half the cases in A and E could have been given to the GP the following morning. Perhaps we are dealing with an accident of patient judgment in self-assessment. Can it wait until tomorrow? Can I see my own doctor? That seems to be commonplace. Or perhaps in the United Kingdom we take our professional medical practitioner services too much for granted.
Be that as it may, the A and E figures throughout London are rising fast, and Guy's is no exception. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his decision to extend A and E provision for Guy's for a few more years while proper, modern GP health clinics can be constructed. That clears the air to show the real uniqueness of Guy's, which must not be destroyed if we wish Britain to be a world-class force and a leader in medical work.
The reputations that I have found Guys to enjoy internationally, in any walk of professional life, take many generations to earn. It has taken decades of high-quality training and work to have achieved that high position, and Guy's specialists are renowned everywhere. It was both my parental and international experience of Guy's excellence that made me turn to the Minister with my evidence. I thank him most warmly for listening. It is clear that he already possesses the sagacity of Minerva.
I now call on him to display the wisdom of Solomon and cut the trust of Guy's and St. Thomass hospital in half. He is not faced with one baby, one mother and one umbilical chord, but surely with Siamese twins, who are pulling apart and perhaps would work best separately. I believe that they are in drastic need of surgery by the Ministers own legislative hand. I call on him to make Guys hospital an independent trust and to let it assume the excellence of specialism worldwide that it alone can provide.
12.42 pm
Mr. Piers Merchant: I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate,

975
because the future of Guy's is inexorably part of the future of the hospital system for the whole of London, and that is of great concern to my constituents.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look closely at the new evidence that is available, especially on A and E provision across London, where there are problems, and also at the quite strong argument for maintaining a future for Philip Harris house. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) will excuse me if I take a slightly different perspective from his, although I pay warm tribute to him for his work as part of the Save Guys campaign. I listened carefully to his speech this morning. I have read the literature that he sent me and congratulate him on winning the ballot for the debate today.
I have no negative feelings about Guy's and I accept that strong arguments were made by the campaign group. The quality of care at Guy's is excellent and it has a tremendous history, but I do not necessarily accept two of the important premises—at least made by some—of the argument: first, that somehow the future of Guy's can be judged in isolation, that it is of merit in itself and whatever happens will not affect other hospitals and other health care in London.
That is not correct. It will do so, because resources are necessarily, and always will be, limited, and the patterns of demand elsewhere will be affected by what is available at Guys. There is a desperate need for resources to be focused into local areas in London, particularly in outer London, where they are deficient, and I would not want to see that in any way prejudiced by decisions being made on the future of hospitals in London. Resources have been retained in the centre of the capital, when there should be a reallocation to the outer boroughs.
Secondly, I do not accept that Guys necessarily has the best access. Of course transport facilities there are excellent, but many of my constituents find it just as easy, if not easier, to get to St. Thomass. The link between Beckenham Junction, the main station in the centre of my constituency, and Victoria is considerably better than the link between stations in my constituency and London Bridge. People can get as quickly, if not more quickly, to St. Thomass, and with equal ease.
It is important that that is considered in the argument. My constituents want—it is their greatest concern—better local facilities. They want to see a greater emphasis on primary care, particularly fundholding GP practices. The £210 million that will be made available in the current three-year period to expand primary care is an absolute priority. I pay tribute to the GPs in my constituency who have been able greatly to expand their provision, particularly Dr. Kenneth Scott, who is a leader in this area and who happens to be retiring this Friday.
My constituents also want a greater emphasis on local, diagnostic, small injuries and consultancy facilities, which can be done at local hospitals. They want to see more investment in a district general hospital, and better A and E facilities in the borough of Bromley, which is where they live and where the greatest demand is. Of course there is a role for centres of excellence and a need for proper A and E provision in the centre of London, where some of my constituents work, but the emphasis must be on reallocating priorities to where the population is principally resident, and that is in outer London.
976
No action is no option. There has been, and still is, an over-concentration on hospital facilities in central London. It is time to get the balance right. It is time to have better provision in outer London, and to an extent that means at the expense of inner London. I accept that. Unfortunately, it is not possible to please everybody all the time and some difficult decisions have to be made.
The worst of all options is to delay further. We have grappled with the problem long enough. We have seen enough uncertainty. We have seen too many suggestions put up only to be pulled down. We now need to see final decisions so that we can get on with the, perhaps difficult, period of adjustment to the new reality, and with providing the best standard of health care for all the people of London.
12.47 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) and, as so often in the past, to disagree mildly with him, and to add to the advice that has been given to the Minister.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), not just on securing todays debate but on achieving the tremendous feat of uniting the House behind the case that he is making. I pay tribute to him, to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) for their work on the Save Guys campaign. As well as visiting Guys hospital, I have met the campaign team in the House of Commons. I find its case overwhelmingly persuasive. I pay tribute to everybody who is involved in the campaign.
The hon. Member for Chislehurst set his remarks, rightly, in the context of the Tomlinson report, and said, as did many other hon. Members, not least my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and for Peckham (Ms Harman), that it is flawed. The more we examine these matters, the more flawed it seems to be.
Tomlinson was based on the assumption that London is over-bedded. The recent work of Professor Brian Jarman, and the points teased out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich through parliamentary questions, show that that is not the case.
It is claimed that London gets 20 per cent. of NHS funding for only 15 per cent. of the population. That again is a flawed assumption. The figures take into account London allowances, teaching facilities and national responsibilities rather than those that pertain specifically just to London.
It is argued that somehow the capital can perform as though it were an average English district. It cannot do that. For a variety of reasons, London is a special case. It has a large transient population, high levels of social deprivation and poverty, large ethnic minority communities, a higher than average prevalence of mental illness and lower than average provision for personal social services. All those factors require special consideration in their own contexts.
The Tomlinson report stated that increased primary care would reduce the demand for hospital services. That assumption is flawed. It is perfectly possible that increasing the provision of primary care will stimulate the demand for secondary services. That will happen as the need for new treatments are discovered by the primary carer. Tomlinson

977
also thought, perhaps based on flawed research, that patients from outer London do not use inner-London facilities. Recent research by the Kings Fund shows that that is also a flawed assumption, and that about 30 per cent. of patients currently using inner-London hospital facilities come from outside inner London.
Tomlinson thought that the location of casualty services was not important. That again is a flawed assumption. Clinicians speak about the golden hour during which it is important to get a person who needs intensive care to the facilities. Therefore, geography is important. I am sure that the hon. Member for Beckenham would agree with that. Although Tomlinson and the Government did not hold that view when discussing the capital in general, they seem to have taken it when discussing St. Thomass hospital and its proximity to Whitehall. The Government should not try to have it both ways, because that does not do the debate a service.
Philip Harris house is an integral part of Guys hospital and it is a modern, state of the art, national health service facility. As the hon. Member for Chislehurst said, it cost more than £150 million. Some of that money came from charitable sources. My right hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and I have visited the site. I agree with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) that it is interesting to see the facilities. The fact that they are not to be used for the purpose for which they were intended is mind-boggling. It is astonishing that provision for intensive care is to be ripped out and the building used for some other purpose.
I understand that, when the Ministers predecessor visited the site, he looked at the tower block and sent surveyors from the Department of Health to see whether it could be sold for development into flats. That is not a responsible way to treat NHS facilities. Such development would be an act of clinical and financial vandalism. It is inconceivable that any independent review would or could possibly endorse such a decision, and Labour is calling for an independent review. Moreover, that review must not be pre-empted by irreversible decisions to close facilities.
We ask the Minister to pause and think again. He has satirised Labours call for a review of a review but it is better to stop and think again than to proceed in the wrong direction. The Minister should think about what is happening in London and about the special case that has been made for Guys hospital, because Guys is a special case. It is not a question of setting it against St. Thomass but if, because of its proximity to Whitehall, St. Thomass is to be made a special case, that is a national issue and it should be funded as a national consideration and not placed as a burden on local health care
Ms Kate Hoey: I should not like the House to be under the illusion that the only case for St. Thomass is that it is near Whitehall. As my hon. Friend knows, about 500,000 signatures were collected some two years ago when there was a huge campaign about the importance of St. Thomass, not just as a national hospital but as one serving the local community. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean that its proximity to Whitehall was the only reason for St. Thomass being considered as a national hospital, because that is incorrect.
Mr. Brown: I was not trying to make the point that that was the only case for St. Thomass. However, when she was announcing her decisions, the Secretary of State
978
for Health paid particular attention to St. Thomass location. Of course there is a strong case for St. Thomass, but there is also a strong case for Guys and that case, which I endorse, has been made in the debate. I do not intend to set the debate in the adversarial context of Guys versus St. Thomass.
As I have said, the case for Guys is overwhelmingly persuasive, and it rests not just on the superb facilities, the renowned history of the hospital and the major development programme that the Minister seems prepared to abandon. Its compact layout makes it an ideal modern hospital, and the building stock is good. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) about damage to the morale of staff and patients if the clinical teams are broken up and transferred elsewhere. For all those powerful reasons, I urge the Minister to think again.
12.55 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): My response to the debate will certainly have a compact layout. I welcome the debate and I have listened to as many contributions as possible. They have been extremely useful. I place even more congratulations on the shoulders of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). My hon. Friend shakes his head. No doubt that is because he has had so many congratulations that he finds them overwhelming. They were offered not just on his success in the ballot but on the sensible and constructive way in which he produced his arguments and presented his case. I extend that compliment to the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Dulwich (Ms Jowell).
The arguments are in the public domain. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey rightly said, at this point in the consultation process, the matter is being debated in the House. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he and other Members sought. Of course Ministers will listen carefully to all views, including those expressed in the debate, and not just to those expressed during the consultation process.
I visited both Guys and St. Thomass before consultation commenced. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) in her place. When I visited St. Thomass, she was also there. I have taken every care to ensure that the fullest possible attention has been given to all the matters that have been raised in the debate. I shall continue to do that, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will look carefully at what has been said in the debate before making final decisions.
I have a number of points about the overall aim of our health policies in London. Basically, they are to improve the quality of patient services and the health of Londoners. In particular, they aim to improve family doctor and other community health services so that Londoners may enjoy the access, level of provision and standards of excellence that are common elsewhere.
They will enable hospitals to respond to the changing demands of an aging and shifting population and to the rising expectation and medical advances that we all know. They also aim to preserve and enhance London's international reputation, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) spoke, for treatment teaching and research by concentrating facilities

979
into high quality centres. I assure the hon. Member for Dulwich that we shall ensure that changes to hospitals are paced alongside improvements in primary care, so that patients will continue to receive the services they need.
I welcome the fact that the process of public consultation has been soundly endorsed in the debate by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I welcome the contributions that he and his colleagues in the Save Guys campaign made to the process. Ministers are concerned that all views will be taken into account before any final decision is made.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the proposals. It would not be proper or appropriate for me to comment today, but I want to emphasise that the proper amount of time is being taken to deal with all the issues before any firm conclusion is reached. The decisions made will be in the best interests of all concerned. Those decisions are hard, difficult, complex and far reaching. Many interests are involved, but decisions must be made and they will not be fudged or shirked.
I welcome the debate as a further opportunity at a vital time to hear and to take note of the views of hon. Members and of all the people whom they represent. Those views will be laid before my right hon. Friend when she finally considers the proposals for change. I know that she will consider—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

West Coast Main Line
1 pm
Mrs. Audrey Wise: The west coast main line is Britain's busiest railway. It serves a population of 16 million, in 16 counties or regions. More than 2,000 trains a day pass over its tracks. It is therefore of immense social and economic importance, yet it has been grossly neglected in the past 15 years.
It was originally built in the 1830s and 1840s, and it was the first inter-city railway in the world. In the first half of the century, some parts of the line were widened to four tracks, and the line was electrified between 1955 and 1975, but we are now in 1995, and virtually nothing has changed in the past 20 years.
The rolling stock is not of a modern standard. For some years, we who travel on the west coast main line have thought enviously of the east coast main line. We especially think about that when we listen to the all too frequent announcements about the breakdown of the locomotive pulling the train in front of ours, and about the fact that overhead lines are down in the Rugby area. That gives us quite a few opportunities to think enviously of the east coast line.
Our hopes were raised a year or so ago, but, with the exercise of their remarkable logic, the Government decided that the west coast main line should be put into competition with the equally necessary Networker trains for the south-east. For reasons that we can only guess at, the south-east was declared the winner.
In November 1994, the then new Secretary of State for Transport published a glossy brochure called Building Tomorrows Transport Network, which mentioned the west coast main line. It said:
The intention is to launch a competition in early 1995 for the design and build, and to let a contract in mid-1995, for work to start as soon as possible after that.
In the summary published on 22 March, we at last had some firm recommendations, but, in the past four months, the time scale for starting any work has slipped at least a year. Page 55 talks about
the award of contracts for the implementation of the modernisation of the west coast main line in 1996.
We are being offered some, but by no means all, of what is needed. The recommendation is for what is called a core investment programme. That programme is essentially for an advanced train control and signalling system, combined with track renewal to maintain, or possibly to improve, its condition, and some enhancement of power supply, giving improved capacity, safety and reliability. It is therefore to be welcomed, but it is not sufficient. Further changes should be made. They have been identified, but they are to be regarded as optional add-ons, which may or may not happen.
The feasibility study includes the recommended core investment programme and a range of other things, which are displayed, as it were, in a shop window, to be picked up or not by franchisees. One is new advanced rolling stock—trains—which is crucial for passengers.
Another is the capacity to piggy-back freight containers—to take standard size road trailers and lift them on to modified wagons on the railway. That provides the opportunity for a truly integrated freight transport system, giving the advantages of the road when its use is

981
essential, but allowing full use of the railway for the larger part of journeys, with the massive environmental gains and great benefit to road users that that brings.
The published feasibility study gives little weight to the economic impact of full-scale modernisation of the west coast main line. It devotes little more than a page to it. In contrast, local authorities such as my own in Lancashire are well seized of the lines economic importance both directly, in transport terms, and in terms of jobs generated in undertaking the work.
One of the major worries of all of us who want a thoroughly upgraded service involves the question, Where will the money come from? The Government appear to have washed their hands of real responsibility in the matter. Railtrack says that it can find the £1 billion needed for the core investment programme between 1996 and 2004. That is a long time scale. I appreciate the technical and logistical constraints, but will the Minister assure me that financial constraints will not be allowed to lengthen the work further, and that that is the shortest time scale that is technically possible? Is it already influenced by cash constraints?
One of the Governments initial papers on privatising the rail network, called New Opportunities for the Railways, stated in paragraph 43 that the Government are
ready to provide direct support for investment in the railway, for schemes which, although not earning an adequate financial return, provide a satisfactory cost-benefit return when wider benefits are taken into account.
The channel tunnel main line project will benefit from capitalised payments of £1 billion in recognition of the benefits arising from its handling of Kent commuter traffic, so clearly the Government are putting some flesh on their promise in New Opportunities for the Railways. That was a belated, but welcome, recognition on the Governments part that the public sector should contribute to the provision of either new or upgraded railways. Will the Minister, in the same spirit, please explain how he proposes to ensure that an appropriate contribution is made to the west coast main line?
Railtrack is implicitly treated as though it were already privatised. Further fragmentation will take place when the franchises come into being. The Government are effectively washing their hands of their financial responsibility. Talking of finance prompts me to hope that increased fares will not be extracted from passengers who are now paying high fares for what is often a substandard service.
In any case, however, complex arrangements must be made to give Railtrack extra resources via the franchisees, assuming that more revenue is generated not from higher charges but from increased usage. In the feasibility study, Railtrack points out that those resources must, somehow, be conveyed from the franchisees, who will be the immediate beneficiaries, to Railtrack, which will bear a great deal of the cost. The Government are fragmenting the railway system, and the fragments will have to find complicated ways to recombine, which serves merely to illustrate the fact that the railway service should be unified. We have all heard the comments made in the past few days by Sir Bob Reid, who can claim some expertise in these matters.
One of the problems is that the Government are not giving sufficient weight to the economic importance of the west coast main line or to the beneficial environmental impact of attracting more passengers and freight on to the
982
railways. When those factors are taken into account and given due weight, it becomes clear that there needs to be public sector involvement. It is all very well to involve private sector finance—we are not in any way opposed to that—but if we depend on it entirely, we shall run into trouble and experience further delays.
Some of the leases on the current rolling stock do not finish until the year 2002. There is no guarantee that the new franchisees will be willing to accept the financial burden necessary to provide us with advanced trains. What is the Governments answer to these problems? So far, I have detected only a pretty deafening silence, which is not satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will answer my specific questions.
Are the Government committed to a piggy-back service to facilitate upgraded freight transport? If they are not, the Minister will have to explain to the nation why the Government are so careless of the environmental damage done to the planet as a whole, and to the roads in particular, by the excessive carriage of freight on the roads, especially when it could very conveniently be carried by rail if the west coast main line were improved.
What is the Minister going to do about injecting public sector finance into the railways as an acknowledgement of the important economic and environmental impact of a proper upgrading? What will he do to prevent the fragments from causing complete financial and technical chaos on the west coast main line? There are 16 million people in 16 regions along the line, which passes through many marginal seats, something that it is perhaps worth mentioning at this stage in the parliamentary cycle. What has the Minister to say to reassure all of us?
1.12 pm
Mr. Henry McLeish: I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) about this important project. I wish to register the Labour party's concern about the fact that the Government are dragging their feet on a vital investment project for the next century.
Let us set the west coast main line in context. No one should doubt that it is an essential part of the national rail network, but it is also critical for regional development. It is an arterial spine of the railway system, and it must be renewed and refurbished. The next century is only five years away, but the refurbishment has not yet been started.
The line is also a vital link to Europe. In Committee earlier today, some of us were discussing the interoperability of trains in Europe. It is hoped that improvement of the west coast main line will not only improve services in Britain but provide a vital link to London through the tunnel and into Europe.
The line is also important as a symbol of what needs to be done in this country. We need to invest, to make the economy a priority and to ensure that passenger services are as good as they can be. For those reasons, the Minister must show some urgency in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston.
I fear that the west coast main line project faces real problems, two of which are the lack of a real and effective timetable and the lack of effective funding. Much has been said about the private sector—we want to encourage private finance in all sectors of the economy—but, to coin a phrase, Wheres the beef? How long do we have to

983
wait before we see the colour of the money? How long before we have a timetable showing the start of this vital project?
In addition to those considerations, privatisation is creating uncertainty. It has been a shambles. Uncertainty has made the private sector sceptical and suspicious of a Government who have apparently taken leave of their senses and who appear to lack commitment and enthusiasm for such an important project. The dumping of privatisation would allow the nation to return to the key issues of investment, jobs and passenger services instead of focusing on the nonsense indulged in day after day.
As my hon. Friend asked, where is the cash to come from? Will the scheme mean a dramatic rise in fares for those who use the refurbished parts of the route under the jurisdiction of Railtrack? Have the technical problems been solved?
We want to spend £1 billion on a much-needed refurbishment project, but we also want to franchise the west coast main line at the same time, and Railtrack is dividing the zone covering the line into two. I can hardly think of words to describe that, apart from crazy or mad. The net effect will be to delay the project even longer, to the disadvantage of the various constituencies that my hon. Friend mentioned. That cannot continue.
The nation needs to consider urgently the future of the rail network. Let the Minister say that he is pursuing the matter vigorously. I have little faith that Railtrack will deliver on this project. The chairman is far too involved in privatisation and flotation of Railtrack itself. How on earth can his mind be properly focused on the issues facing people using the west coast main line when there are so many distractions?
Railtrack has to exhibit the expertise and enthusiasm to get the project under way, but today we look to the Minister to reassure us that he shares our sense of urgency, and that he will tell Railtrack that now is the time to move the project on so that we can reap the benefits. Then, instead of regarding privatisation as the main issue, we can make investment in the future of Britain and the future of the west coast main line our priority.
1.16 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I thank the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) for providing the House with an opportunity to discuss the west coast main line modernisation project, and congratulate her on her timing.
Last week, we saw what I regard as some exciting developments for the scheme, and I am glad to have an opportunity to review them before the whole House, as I did with the all-party group last week. The hon. Lady gave us the history of the line and, at one point, I thought that we might have had the same speech writer as our words were identical. In any event, I shall not repeat them.
The hon. Lady emphasised the importance of the route, which runs from London to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow, with a further connection to Edinburgh, and the fact that it crosses 16 regions with some 16 million inhabitants. Its annual traffic is around 3 billion miles of passenger journeys, and 5.5 billion tonnes km of freight. Unfortunately, I have to use kilometres when dealing with statistics, contrary to my preferences.
984
The electrification of the line was completed 20 years ago, which is one reason that an upgrade is now timely, and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), the former Secretary of State, for Transport, announced in December 1993 that the modernisation of the west coast main line would be a flagship project for the private finance initiative.
In March last year, after keen competition, Railtrack let the contract for the first phase of the project. The key tasks set for that stage of the scheme were to assess the technical options for the modernisation of the line and to make recommendations on the appropriate funding and contracting strategy for the main modernisation project.
The successful consortium was the West Coast Main Line development company, a diverse group of private sector companies. The feasibility study was completed on time.
Mr. Eric Martlew: When the Minister originally announced the scheme, he said that it was to be funded by £600 million of private sector money. Will he tell us why that figure has become £1 billion, and whether it will be a mixture of private and public money?
Mr. Watts: Clearly, as the examination of the feasibility has progressed, the estimated costings have been more clearly defined and we have moved to a different cost base. There is scope for a mixture of public and private funding. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have secured the inclusion of this important project in the Christophersen group of projects of Community significance, which may be one of the sources of available funding.
As I was saying, the feasibility study was completed on time just before Christmas and delivered to the Government. The development company recommended a comprehensive modernisation of the infrastructure of the whole line, involving major work over a number of years on track, power supply and structures. The work which the consortium has carried out on the lines essential assets is important and thorough. However, the most inspirational element of its report, as well as that which will be the most complex and time-consuming to deliver, is the proposed new signalling and control system.
Railtrack and the consortium carried out a very careful assessment of existing signalling technologies, and reached the conclusion that none of them represented the way forward for the west coast main line. Instead, the consortium recommended the development of a new generation of transmission-based cab signalling and the construction of a single, integrated control centre.
Mr. Bill Olner: Will the Minister confirm that this cab control system, which he spoke about at the meeting of the all-party west coast main line group, to which he referred, has not been proven to work for passenger traffic? It has only been proven to work in north America, where trains are separated by anything up to three or four hours, and it has never been contemplated for use on a line so busy as the west coast main line.
Mr. Watts: I do not claim any great technical expertise, but my advice is that the equipment required is already in existence. What will be new is configuring it into a system to meet the needs of the west coast main line.

985
It is not entirely new territory. I am told that it is very similar to the control system used in the channel tunnel, for example, and it is also very much in line with the proposed technical standards for the European train control system, which is also being developed. While I would not pretend that the system is not breaking some new frontiers, I do not believe that it is beyond the ability of our industry to develop a suitable system, and it is not so ground-breaking that there are any serious doubts that it can be delivered.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not also important to recognise not only that the line has to be exclusively equipped for the new Intercity routes on the west coast main line, but that signalling will be made difficult because, on certain stretches, it will still have to be able to cope with local services?
Mr. Watts: In considering how it would be implemented, Railtrack is planning a period when there will be dual signalling techniques on the line, so that services crossing the line, which would not necessarily have the new technology, will continue to be able to operate safely. Clearly it is important that, during a major upgrade on a line which carries 2,000 trains, provisions must be made for the line to continue to operate. We cannot just close it down while work is carried out.
Indeed, one of the benefits of new technology signalling is that it is not a matter of ripping up cables and trackside signals and replacing them. The existing cables and signals can stay in place and continue operating while the cab-based system is implemented. The two will not interfere with each other.
I was very pleased last week to be able to announce that the Government have given their approval to Railtrack moving ahead as quickly as possible to award a contract to develop the system. The contract will be structured to transfer to the private sector real responsibilities associated with the delivery and performance of the technology and the financial risk associated with those responsibilities. I expect Railtrack to let that contract later this year.
With regard to timing, I would say to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that I certainly do not wish to see any dragging of feet, and nor do the Government. We look upon it as a very important project, for all the reasons that he and the hon. Member for Preston have mentioned. There is no incentive for Railtrack to go slow either, because it looks on the project as an important commercial opportunity, and it is very much in its own commercial interests to be able to offer a better service to its customers who operate passenger and freight trains on the line. There is every incentive for all the parties involved to make progress as rapidly as possible.
The key importance of the new technology is that it substantially reduces maintenance costs. From the savings which arise from ceasing to maintain an outdated technology, much of the funding for the core investment programme will be released.
986
As well as the core programme, the study produced by the development company also assessed a range of possible service enhancements. For passenger services, they include the possibility of higher speeds on the line, leading to substantial reductions in journey times. For freight services, the report assessed a range of enhancements, including the increased clearances which would be needed to allow piggy-back traffic. Those enhancements will be offered by Railtrack to its customers and prospective customers on a commercial basis. I am due to have a further meeting with Lord Berkeley of the piggy-back consortium in the next few weeks, so that he may update me on the development of its ideas.
On the passenger side, though, the director of passenger rail franchising will have a pivotal role in the discussions and negotiations between Railtrack and the train operating companies. The franchising director has kept very closely in touch with the progress of the study, and I know that, over recent months, he and his staff at Opraf have been consulting widely with both rolling stock manufacturers and potential franchisees.
The hon. Member for Preston asked what the funding mechanism will be. The means by which money feeds into the railway for passenger services is of course through the franchising directors budget and the agreements that he enters into with train operators. In turn, those funds feed through to Railtrack through access charges.
The mode will be that Railtrack will have the responsibility of raising money to fund capital investment. Its remuneration, as for all its activities, will be through the track access charges paid by train operators.
Mrs. Wise: Since the rail regulator some time ago announced that Railtrack access charges should be 8 per cent. lower this year than last year, and that they should fall by 2 per cent. in real terms in each of the subsequent years, how can we be sure that such a squeeze on access charges will not interfere with the funding arrangements that the Minister is now outlining, and make it impossible to get the money through to Railtrack?
Mr. Watts: In reaching his judgments on the appropriate level of access charges, the regulator will also have considered his responsibility to oversee Railtracks investment programme to ensure that it continues to have the funds needed to invest in improvements, maintain the network and produce an adequate return. He has reached the conclusion that Railtrack has considerable scope for efficiency savings, and that some of those should be passed through to train operators rather than being merely for the benefit of the shareholders of Railtrack when it enters the private sector.
There is a mechanism in place for funding to flow through and provide support for the investment proposals. I think that the hon. Lady will understand that the project is different from the channel tunnel rail link, not because of the region that it serves but because that rail link is a totally private sector project with an initial capital contribution from the Government, partly in the form—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

Climate Change
1.30 pm
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am pleased to have the opportunity to open a debate on this subject. As the first conference of the parties to the Rio climate change convention begins its deliberations in Berlin, it has become clear that accelerating global warming, resulting from human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases, is a reality.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—IPCC—is convinced that its earlier predictions were accurate, and that, unless action is taken, mean global temperature will rise by about 3 deg by the year 2100. That calculation is based on the conservative assumption that fossil fuel burning will increase by 1 per cent. per annum over the next 50 years.
That will probably lead to a rise in sea level of about 45 cm, causing the inundation of large areas of land, including some entire island countries, with unpredictable effects on the weather and the spread of diseases, with possibly disastrous effects on agriculture and thus on the fate of entire populations, and with a catastrophic loss of species and of biodiversity.
Everyone knows that there have recently been attempts to rubbish the global warming theory, some emanating from powerful industrial vested interests. Bert Bolin, the IPCC chairman, acknowledges that there has been
an increasing polarisation of public debate,
but insists that that
is not a reflection of a similar change among experts.
It is important to emphasise that the IPCC's most recent report had 25 main authors from 11 countries, and drew on a draft text from 120 authors, whose work was reviewed by more than 230 other people from 31 countries. The global warming theory is no mere nine days wonder.
There is another kind of sceptic too. The commentator Frances Cairncross, writing in yesterdays edition of The Independent, acknowledged that global warming might be happening but suggested that the costs of action to arrest it might be greater than the benefits, so, because of the uncertainty, it would be better to delay action until the countries of the world were richer and had the resources to ameliorate its effects.
Frances Cairncross quoted the American economist William Cline, who argues:
the benefits of taking action do not overtake the costs until about 2150.
Mr. Cline is obviously into cost-benefit analysis, which is, to put it mildly, a highly suspect process that ascribes monetary values to just about everything, including human lives, in order to determine what action should or should not be taken in particular circumstances.
The IPCC itself has economists, some funded by United Kingdom public moneys, working on cost-benefit analysis in relation to global warming. In my view the work that they are doing should be profoundly questioned. Typically, they base their valuation of anything on its potential for economic production. By that methodology the Maldives, home to 177,000 people, are worth far less than, say, the City of London, and an extensive area of Bangladeshi agricultural land is worth less than a single American automobile factory.
988
Thus, typically, it is argued that the loss to American GDP caused by reducing automobile production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be greater than the gain in saving Bangladeshi farmland on which thousands of people depend for subsistence. In cost-benefit analysis, such conclusions are seriously defended.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Is it taken into account in cost-benefit analysis that, if most of Bangladesh is flooded, its population will presumably try to escape into neighbouring countries, and that under the pressure of that huge immigration, warfare and disruption are likely in those other countries?
Mr. Dafis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out, and I doubt whether cost-benefit analysis has the sophistication to conduct such complex modelling that goes well beyond the immediate costs. However, I am trying to show that it is a basically flawed way of approaching the subject in the first place.
Worse than what I have already said is the fact that IPCC economists are now ascribing differential monetary values to human lives—a Bangladeshi life, for example, being worth about one tenth of an American or a western European life—and then feeding calculations based on such valuations into the consideration of whether particular actions are cost effective.
Such obscene ideas—I could even call them blasphemous—could become a serious impediment to progress in climate change negotiations. The Indian Minister responsible for the environment and forests wrote a letter to a number of Governments, including that of the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister has seen a copy of it, and I shall quote from it:
In my judgment, the present impasse became inevitable when the alleged cost-effectiveness of Joint Implementation was sought to be based on absurd and discriminatory Global Cost/Benefit Analysis procedures propounded by economists in the work of IPCC Working Group III … We unequivocally reject the theory that the monetary value of peoples lives around the world is different because the value imputed should be proportional to the disparate income levels of the potential victims concerned.
The Minister then moved on to a linked although distinct issue:
To compound the problem, global damage assessments are being expressed in US dollar equivalent. Thus the monetary significance of damages to developing countries is substantially under-represented. Damage to human beings, whether in developed or in developing countries, must be treated as equal, and cannot be translated in terms of currency exchange rate systems.
Finally, and powerfully and importantly, the Minister says:
Faced with this we feel that this level of misdirection must be purged from the negotiation process. The distributional issue of unequal-rights-by-income versus equal-rights-per capita must be resolved to enable fruitful discussions about possible protocols to the Convention, proportionality of commitments and financial mechanisms.
I certainly agree with that, and I am fairly confident that you do too, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am also confident that the Minister will give us an assurance that the United Kingdom delegation shares the view of the Indian Government and will act accordingly.
The economists may have a role. Let them help to identify the policies necessary to achieve environmental sustainability, and elaborate on the changed patterns of economic activity that sustainability would imply. Let them offer costings for such measures. That is the scope of their expertise, and they should stick to it.

989
Assuming that such nonsense is purged from the negotiation process, what should the outcome of the conference be for it to be regarded as a success? There must be targets for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions beyond the year 2000. The stabilisation of emissions is nowhere near sufficient to stabilise the concentrations in the atmosphere, and it is the concentrations that count.
The IPCC is standing by its 1990 claim that to stabilise carbon dioxide concentrations at current levels, humanity must cut global carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. globally, and that has implications for greater reductions in the northern developed countries. Bearing that in mind, the Association of Small Island States—which comprises 36 countries—has demanded that a protocol be added to the convention which sets a target for carbon dioxide reductions of 20 per cent. for industrialised countries by the year 2005. As a first step, that seems to be modest indeed. That, of course, is the Toronto target, which has already been incorporated into the national plans of eight industrialised countries. AOSIS has the backing of the G77 group in Berlin.
Meanwhile, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries—driven by a short-term interpretation of its material self-interest—is opposing any reduction in the targets at all. That is why the rules and procedures adopted are so important. A requirement for unanimity in setting targets would be fatal, and I understand that the Government will be strongly supporting majority voting. I hope that the Minister can confirm that. The negotiations and the drafting process are continuing on the assumption that majority voting will apply, but a decision on the consensus process and the majority voting issue will have to be made at next Mondays plenary session.
At the very least, the minimum that should emerge from the conference is a negotiating process to establish emission reductions which will be finally agreed at the next conference. The poorer countries are naturally demanding that the industrial countries, which are responsible for the problem—America is responsible for 24 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions on its own—take the lead.
There is suspicion among the G77 countries concerning the idea of joint implementation, whereby twinned industrialised and underdeveloped countries would agree a joint reduction target and plan. It is important that that should not become a licence for high emissions from industrialised countries which inhibit the development of the underdeveloped countries and hold back their hopes of achieving an improvement in their quality of life. Will the UK delegation push for the IPCC secretariat to be required to verify and monitor any joint implementation schemes?
The Government have made much of their claimed success that they will be saving between 17 million and 25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by the year 2000, which is going beyond the 10 million tonnes target necessary for stabilising emissions at 1990 levels. Their success is largely fortuitous, and it masks the Governments failure to achieve most of the specific objectives which they set themselves in 1992, including a significant expansion of combined heat and power. They have used excuses not to develop a truly sustainable energy policy and to establish more ambitious targets.
Achieving sustainability will involve far-reaching adjustments in the way we run our community and our economy. We and the rest of the industrial world—the Annex 1 countries—must now commit ourselves to a
990
menu of undertakings under familiar and well-established headings. Those must include energy planning and efficiency in all sectors—including the expansion of CHP for fossil fuel burning—a major commitment to renewables which includes research and development in pioneering techniques like photovoltaics, and the transfer of technologies to third-world countries which would otherwise go in for a large consumption of fossil fuels and an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. We must enable those countries to achieve development without undergoing environmental degradation.
We need taxation and investment policies which encourage the conservation of energy while encouraging employment and emphasising social equity. We must employ the carrot, as well as the stick. We also need a continuing educational drive and public information initiative to influence consumer choice and life style. Those areas are crucial for our economic policy and for our environmental and social welfare generally, and not climate change alone. In fact, those matters would be relevant and valid even if we disproved the climate change theory. However, climate change is now the urgent issue and the catalyst for action.
It is essential that, following the Berlin conference, the Secretary of State makes an oral statement to the House or opens a full debate, as climate change is an issue of sufficient gravity to merit at least that parliamentary time. I look forward to getting the Ministers assurance on that matter.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Todays debate gives us an opportunity to come down to earth between the cataclysmic alarmists and the it will never happen to me brigade. I am certainly not getting my horse and cart out yet.
If we could come down to some practicalities, today is a good opportunity to debate the matter, particularly since this week sees the opening of the first meeting of the conference of parties to the climate change convention in Berlin.
The conference will be attended by Ministers from more than 120 countries, and that emphasises how seriously it is being taken. They will be considering the adequacy of existing commitments under the convention and the case for setting in hand arrangements to negotiate a protocol on further-reaching measures beyond the year 2000.
At the conference, the Secretary of State will be calling on all developed countries to agree to a tougher new long-term target to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by a figure between 5 and 10 per cent. below the 1990 levels by 2010. The UK has always been at the forefront of the international work under the convention. We are now leading the way in calling for a realistic and achievable reduction target for the year 2010.
Three main issues were raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). First, he mentioned the questioning of the science of climate change, and the seriousness of the threat. There are variations in attitude from those who say it will never happen to me through to those who would take us back to the horse and cart, and would have us living in tents. Secondly, he talked about the international response under the climate change convention and the leading international role that is being played by the UK. Thirdly,

991
he raised the UKs contribution to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, and the possible options for further reductions.
The climate change convention was signed by the Prime Minister at the 1992 Rio Earth summit. The convention recognises the need for a co-ordinated global response to tackle the threat of dangerous human interference with the climate system of our planet.
What was the scientific basis for international action? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change carried out a major assessment of climate change in 1990, with supplementary reports published in 1992 and 1994. The main scientific findings were that emissions from human activities were increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases, and that global average temperatures were predicted to rise by between 0.2 deg C and 0.3 deg C per decade—not 3 deg C as the hon. Gentleman stated.
Mr. Dafis: I said that the prediction was that temperatures would rise by 3 deg C by the end of the next century, which is equivalent to 0.3 deg C per decade.
Sir Paul Beresford: I stand corrected.
Associated with the shift in temperature, there may be an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, sea level rises and droughts in some areas, and yesterdays weather did not help. Uncertainties may remain, including the pattern of regional variations. So we do not have a full answer yet, and we are still looking for one.
The climate modelling work being carried out at the Hadley centre is now so developed that the models are able to account with some accuracy for climate variability over the past 100 years. This increases our confidence in the ability of the models to predict future climate change as our ability to use them increases.
We continue to be committed to guiding policy by sound science, which is the only practical and sensible way to proceed. The UKs national research effort places it at the forefront of climate change research. We currently spend about £100 million on data acquisition and archiving, which includes earth observation from satellites. We shall continue to provide a strong input to the international scientific work through the IPCC, with the UK chairing and providing technical and administrative support for the working group on climatological processes. UK scientists are also well represented in the EU research programme on climate change, currently amounting to some £20 million but increasing threefold in the next programme starting in 1995. I should have thought that the size of those sums shows the importance which this country attaches to the issue.
There are still some uncertainties about the timing, magnitude and pattern of climate change, but in view of the scale of the potential threat, it must be right to take precautionary action, particularly where low-cost action now may prevent the need for more expensive and more dramatic action later.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The Minister mentioned the uncertainties ahead. Did he see The Money Programme at the weekend, in which insurance companies expressed concern because their job is to predict future events and the degree to which they will be called on to pay out sums? As this country makes a more-than-average contribution to the world insurance market, is it not
992
particularly important to Britain's insurance market that we take effective action as soon as possible to combat global warming?
Sir Paul Beresford: I did not see the programme, although I am aware of the problem. Incidentally, the reason why I did not see the programme was because of other events rather than the fact that it was on the BBC. Hon. Members will agree that any action must be based on sound science. Action being taken now is moving towards changes and improvements, and it is being undertaken using sensible and economic means. It would be wrong to take draconian measures without understanding and knowing, on the sound base of science, which way we are going.
The first meeting of the conference of parties to the climate change convention is currently taking place in Berlin. This is reviewing the adequacy of existing commitments under the convention, and we hope that it will set in hand negotiations on possible future commitments.
The Government are convinced that developed countries have a lead responsibility in demonstrating what can be done, which is why the Secretary of State has already announced that he will call for all developed countries to agree to a figure for the reduction of total greenhouse gas emissions in the range between 5 and 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. We believe that such a target would be a credible and achievable next step for those countries to take within the framework of the convention. It will encourage continued international commitment, including from the developing countries. It also marks a significant move to a longer-term target, signalling the need for further reductions, and it reflects the importance of looking at the total effects of all greenhouse gas emissions taken together.
Some people have argued that we should go further. The Association of Small Island States has tabled a proposal for a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2005. Having recently come from the south Pacific, I understand the fears and concerns, because a small shift in ocean level would have a dramatic effect on some of those islands. Nevertheless, we must take account of what can realistically be achieved at this stage, and of the scale of costs that can be justified as appropriate under a precautionary approach. We must also remember that we need to make further progress in the science.
It makes neither environmental nor economic sense for countries to set targets unilaterally. The UK is responsible for only some 3 per cent. of global greenhouse gas emissions. It is essential, therefore, that we maintain international commitment under the convention to ensure the development of an effective global response to the threat, which means that we must focus on proposals that are realistic and achievable under the convention, within the European Union and in our UK programme of measures.
In January 1994, we became the first country to present a national programme under the convention and the first in the world to publish a detailed programme demonstrating how we would fulfil our commitment of aiming to return emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000. The centrepiece of our programme is the set of measures to limit emissions of carbon dioxide—the main greenhouse gas. That was drawn up following extensive consultation, and it contains

993
a balanced package of fiscal, educational and regulatory measures covering all sectors of the economy. It provides the framework that encourages the development of voluntary partnerships with Government, and we believe that it is important for everyone to play their part. It also encourages individuals and organisations to exploit the considerable scope for taking action that is cost-effective in its own right—so-called no regrets measures, which bring with them economic, social and other environmental benefits as well as reducing emissions.
To ensure that we met our commitment, the measures were designed to achieve savings equivalent to 10 million tonnes of carbon against projected emissions in 2000. The latest energy projections, published by the Department of Trade and Industry on 8 March this year, show that not only can we be confident of meeting our commitment, but that we now expect to exceed it, with emissions of carbon dioxide some 6 to 13 million tonnes of carbon below 1990 levels by 2000.
That considerable achievement reflects both the impact of the measures in our programme and our successful policy of privatisation and continuing deregulation of the electricity and gas industries. There has been a significant reduction in the carbon intensity of fuels used for electricity generation, through the increased investment in combined cycle gas turbines, the development of combined heat and power schemes, and the improved performance of nuclear generation. Interestingly, the community, local authorities and housing associations can play an important role in combined heat and power schemes. I was intrigued recently to open just such a scheme, in which engines originally designed for warfare tanks were turned into combined heat and power generators. The savings were considerable and the improvements in heat and power on the estates were dramatic.
Since its launch, our programme has, of course, evolved and some circumstances have changed. To give just a few examples, recent developments include the fact that road
994
fuel duties rose last year by 8.6 per cent. in real terms—substantially more than our annual 5 per cent. commitment. Given the area from which he originates, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will realise that that presents some difficulties for people who live in rural areas, and we must reflect on that.
Another development is that new campaigns run by my Departments energy efficiency office include the making of a corporate commitment campaign, which has over 1,800 signatories and is succeeding in changing board-level attitudes to energy efficiency. That campaign is aimed at persuading firms, in particular, to recognise the financial and economic efforts of taking an energy-efficient approach in addition to the benefits of cutting greenhouse gases. Furthermore, new building regulations are about to come into effect which should improve energy efficiency standards in new homes and buildings by an estimated 25 to 30 per cent. We aim to stimulate the development of new and renewable energy technologies.
The third renewables non-fossil fuel obligation order was announced last December. That is expected to double the capacity of electricity from renewable sources already operational under the first two rounds. It keeps the Government on course as we work towards 1,500 MW of new and renewable generating capacity in the UK by the year 2000.
Looking ahead beyond the year 2000, we shall implement further policies and measures to deliver any long-term savings agreed under the convention. In doing so, we shall take account of the costs of the various options, including the social and environmental values, which cannot readily be quantified.
The prompt and successful implementation of our existing commitments, and the continuing beneficial effects of the measures that we have already taken, will put the UK in an excellent position to meet the challenge that the Secretary of State will put to developed countries in Berlin.
As I said at the beginning, there is a balance.

Educational Property (Twickenham)
2 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I first thank you for the opportunity to raise the question of educational land at Craneford way, Twickenham? The House of Commons has always served as a forum for Members to raise the concerns of constituents. That is what I shall do today.
I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education to direct his attention to the real anxieties of the residents of Heatham park, Twickenham and not merely to deal with the legal position at Craneford way, where the Education Assets Board has divided into two the ownership of an important piece of land. It has done so apparently without regard to the impact on the surroundings of people living nearby in Craneford way, Court way, Heathfield north, Heathfield south, Egerton road, Chudleigh road, Whitton road and beyond.
The people living in the district already suffer from aircraft noise from Heathrow, from heavy traffic along the A316 trunk road—the Great Chertsey road, which is the M3 motorway feeder—from the rugby football crowds on big match days at the Rugby Football Union grounds, Twickenham, only a few hundred yards away, from Richmond upon Thames borough councils big rubbish depot in Craneford way and from its rubbish lorries clanking noisily over road humps in Egerton road from 5 oclock and 6 oclock in the morning.
The Liberal-controlled Richmond upon Thames borough council even published a draft unitary development plan that showed a railway line from Kingston to Heathrow along a viaduct over the open green fields in question. That was shown in a letter from the chief executive of the council to me dated 9 November 1993. Not surprisingly, that plan attracted fierce opposition, and I urged that it should be dropped, which it was.
The environment of the residents is affected by Richmond upon Thames college at Egerton road as well. That is a highly successful tertiary college with about 3,000 students aged from 16 to 19, although some are older, many of them from my constituency. Others are from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) or from outside the London borough of Richmond upon Thames, but well over 1,000 of the students are from Twickenham. The college is generally highly valued, except perhaps by some of its immediate neighbours. I have had to come to terms with some conflict of interest between the college and the residents.
The problem has arisen because, under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the college ceased to be funded by the local education authority, the Richmond upon Thames borough council, and began instead to be funded by the Further Education Funding Council for England.
I voted for the 1992 Act, as its aim was to ensure that colleges were free to respond to the demand from students and employers for an increase in the amount of high-quality further education. Now that such colleges have left local authority control, more money is being spent on further education, and the participation rate for 16 to 19-year-olds in education has increased significantly, even in those two years.
996
It all corresponds to the growth in higher education since 1979, as now about one young person in three in the age group from 18 upwards is receiving further or higher education and 15 years ago it was only about one in eight. The work of the tertiary colleges acts as a feeder for that, and in doing so gives opportunities to a larger number of young people who are in that age group.
However, as a result of that change in financial responsibility for the college, there was a dispute about the ownership of two fields to the south of Craneford way, to the south of the college and to the east of the councils rubbish depot. The council and the college both claimed both fields. It fell to the Education Assets Board to decide.
The Education Assets Board ruled that one field should go to the council—the field on the west side, which is marked blue on the map that is used to describe the situation—and that the field on the east side, marked red, should go to the college. Those two fields are divided by a public footpath. The field assigned to the college is more flat and is therefore said to be more suitable as a sports ground, but the residents would have preferred the allocation to be the other way around, because more of them live close to the flatter field and are fearful about the future effect on their environment.
The Education Assets Board, in reaching its decision, took representations from the borough council and from the college, which were deemed under the 1992 Act to be parties to the dispute in that each claimed ownership; but the board did not take evidence from residents, who feel that their environment and their facilities are threatened by the possible loss of access to either or both fields or by parking of large numbers of cars on big rugby union match days or even by building on the site in the future.
Typical of the feeling of such residents is a letter that I received only yesterday, and which I conveyed to my hon. Friend the Minister well on into the evening. It is from a resident of Heathfield south. He wrote on 25 March 1995, but the letter must have come in the second class post and did not arrive until 28 March:
I was incensed at the meeting held at the Tertiary College last night—
I held a public meeting on Thursday night—
when during your introduction I discovered that the EAB had classified the local residents as a third party. As a result … I now understand that
the board
ignored correspondence sent to them in the good faith that it would consider alongside other relevant submissions.
Surely, the EAB have a duty to consider or at the very least pass on the correspondence to the relevant parties in the dispute or otherwise to clearly—
I repeat, clearly—
explain the reasons why they are unable to accept our submissions. I was simply informed by their legal adviser that I may wish to ask the Borough Council to consider my comments which quite frankly is totally misleading. It was not until your meeting that I discovered that they would only consider submissions that came directly from the parties in dispute.
It would of course have been open to the Richmond upon Thames borough council, as a party to the dispute, to represent all such views to the Education Assets Board, and in that way it would have been possible for the board to take environment into account. In this case, it appears that the board did not do so, because my constituent was not given anything like a full explanation of his rights by the Education Assets Board, which seems to have replied to him in a rather cavalier and vague fashion.

997
Furthermore, the council could have appealed to the Secretary of State for Education against the Education Assets Boards decision. However, the council decided not to do so. Instead of appealing, the council asked the Secretary of State to put two conditions on the transfer of the land. Those conditions were to keep the field unfenced and to make sure that the field was used only for the purpose of education and recreation and not for any commercial purposes. Those two conditions proposed by the council are set out in a letter to me from the chief executive of the council dated 21 March, which I have passed to my hon. Friend.
It is of course Government policy to promote more sports and games in schools—both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education have said so repeatedly. Schools usually means for children up to 16 years. Of course, if there were an increase in sports and games among children up to 16, then, in time, that would result in more demand for sports and games provision for the over-16s.
The college is adamant that it needs the playing fields for sport as it aims to be a sports centre for west London. It says that its current use of the sports field is inhibited by dog messes as people are allowed to walk their dogs in the field which is unfenced. The college says that, as a result, it has to hire sports fields elsewhere which are less convenient as they are further away, and which cost the college money.
I should like to stress to my hon. Friend that there is a credibility gap between the college and the residents. The residents say that the fields have hardly ever—I repeat, hardly ever—been used for sport. It has been reported to me that, when an inspector from the Education Assets Board came all the way from its offices in Leeds to look at the lie of the land, two sports matches were put on for his benefit, a car from the college met him at Twickenham station and he was then given lunch at the college. I must ask my hon. Friend to check the evidence as to the real extent of the historic usage of the field for sport, as otherwise it is entirely possible that the adjudication of the Education Assets Board was based on false premises, which already one of my constituents has asked me to refer to the ombudsman.
The college has lodged an appeal with the Secretary of State against the councils conditions. I understand that that is what my hon. Friend who is advising the Secretary of State has to deal with. I took up those conditions with my hon. Friend, but I was told that there was some doubt in his Department about the legality of imposing such conditions. Therefore, last Thursday—the day of the public meeting which I called—I sought legal advice from Mr. Stephen Mason, QC, Counsel to the Speaker. Mr. Mason examined the matter fully and he has since written to me as follows:
The question is whether, on the appeal, she—
the Secretary of State—
could impose (for the first time) conditions or restrictions on the future use of the part of the land transferred to the College.
My advice is that she has no power to do so; and nor has the Board.
He means the Education Assets Board. He continued:
The Board can only do what these statutory provisions require or authorise it to do. And the Secretary of State can only in law do what the Board can do. The statutory functions are restricted to the transfer of existing property, rights and liabilities. The only scope for the creation of new rights and liabilities is for the protection of one party to the transfer as against the other. It is clear that the interests of any other persons are not in law a proper part of any determination of the Board or of the Secretary of State. So if she
998
created the new restrictions on use for the protection of the local residents her decision would make her liable to proceedings for judicial review of it.
That means that, if the Secretary of State does, or tries to do, what the Richmond upon Thames borough council has asked in imposing the two conditions, the college could take the Secretary of State to court and would win the case. If that is so, the Richmond upon Thames borough council has asked the Secretary of State to make a decision which she has no power to do. Yet the council seems to have relied upon the Secretary of State to impose the conditions while it decided not to appeal against the decision of the Education Assets Board to divide the land.
I understand that the solicitor employed by Richmond borough council was told by a lady in the office of the Education Assets Board that the Secretary of State might make conditions, which turns out not to be the case. Surely it is such an important matter for the residents that the Richmond upon Thames borough council should have taken a second legal opinion before deciding what or what not to do.
I come to the question of what can be done for the residents now, and I shall make eight quick points. First, the borough council should get a second legal opinion on what Mr. Mason wrote. But, to be realistic, that is not a very promising course as, even if the legal opinions differed, the Secretary of State would still have to face the risk of the college taking her to court if she attempted to decide in favour of the councils conditions. Secondly, in the light of Mr. Masons advice, is it legal for the Secretary of State to extend the final date of the appeal against the adjudication by the EAB to give the council another chance to appeal?
Thirdly, towards the end of his letter, Mr. Mason wrote:
If, however, the land in question were subject to restrictions on its use (as by restrictive covenants, trust restrictions or perhaps planning permission) then the land would be transferred subject to these existing restrictions.
Could my hon. Friend look at those restrictions? Fourthly—perhaps this is the most promising idea—Mr. Mason wrote:
I cannot say whether planning permission would be required for a change of use from recreation to use as a car park. But I think it probable that it would be if the changed use was a regular feature.
Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for the Environment about that in order to give guidance to my constituents, a large number of whom are very concerned about the car park?
Fifthly, does the metropolitan open land designation under the unitary development plan help to protect people there from developments? Sixthly, can the college be encouraged to renounce any question of using the land as a car park? Perhaps the funding council could be asked to speak to the college about that. Seventh, there is concern about the safety of women and children using the footpath between the fields to which I referred. Can that issue be looked at?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the needs of children are paramount. If the eastern field became a playing field for older youths aged 16 to 19 years, it would be even more important to keep the western field available for young children. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in encouraging Richmond council to make certain that that takes place.
2.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on securing this debate on a matter, which I know is of great concern to him and to his constituents.
I begin by making it clear that there are two aspects to the dispute about the Craneford way playing fields, and that only one of them comes within the remit of the Education Assets Board—about which I shall say more later—and of the Secretary of State for Education. That is the question of the entitlement under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 of the London borough of Richmond and Richmond upon Thames college to the playing fields. The aspect of the dispute in which neither the assets board nor the Secretary of State for Education has a role concerns the use made of the playing fields by their owners and by local residents under planning legislation. I think that it is that question which is of most direct concern to my hon. Friend.
I fully understand that concern, but I am afraid that it is not a matter for the Education Assets Board or for my Department. It is primarily a matter for the London borough of Richmond as the local planning authority. However, I shall ask a ministerial colleague at the Department of the Environment to write to my hon. Friend about the planning and land use questions that he has raised with me. I may be able to say something about them later in my remarks.
My Departments role is confined to the appeal lodged by the borough against the determination of the assets board regarding the colleges entitlement to part of the Craneford way playing fields. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be too disappointed when I tell him that I am not in a position to anticipate how the Secretary of State might decide this particular case, nor can I respond in this debate to all the points that he has raised. We shall study the record and may write to him subsequently. I shall also arrange for officials to draw them to the attention of the borough and the college respectively, as the two protagonists in the dispute.
The dispute has arisen as a consequence of college independence. In 1993, we transferred responsibility for providing further education from local education authorities such as the London borough of Richmond, to colleges, including tertiary colleges, such as Richmond upon Thames college.
This transfer of responsibility was accompanied by the transfer to colleges of the property, including land, held or used by authorities for the purposes of those colleges. The transfer was necessary because it would clearly not have been sensible to give colleges responsibility for providing further education without giving them the means to do so.
I emphasise that the transfer of property has not privatised it. The property remains in public ownership; it has simply transferred from one public body to another. I also emphasise that the Craneford way playing fields could have been excluded from transfer and remained in the hands of the local authority. That could have been achieved by agreement between the college and the authority, provided that the Secretary of State approved their agreement.
1000
Alternatively, in the absence of such an agreement, the college or authority could have applied to the Secretary of State for the transfer to be waived. In either case, the college could have been permitted to use the land, subject to appropriate conditions, but neither of those options was pursued and they are no longer available. However, it is still open to the two parties to reach an agreement on the disposition of the land and any conditions attaching thereto.
How has ownership of property transferred to colleges? Where possible, it is done by agreement between authorities and colleges under the oversight of the Education Assets Board, which is responsible for securing agreement with authorities about what properties should transfer to colleges. Where agreement has been reached in principle directly between an authority and a college, the boards role has been limited to ensuring that that agreement is documented, but where a college and authority have been unable to reach agreement, the assets board has a duty to try to negotiate one. Where such an agreement appears to the board to be unlikely, or has not been reached after negotiation, the board has power to give a direction which determines the dispute. That is what the board has had to do in the case of Craneford way playing fields.
The Education Assets Board is a small non-departmental public body based in Leeds. It has 10 part-time members, including a chairman, appointed by the Secretary of State for their experience of property management, education, local government and finance. It also has some 19 full-time equivalent officials, including a chief executive who is a further member of the board.
The assets board has so far completed the transfer of property from local authorities to 165 further education corporations, and is currently considering a further 319 such transfers, but the boards remit is not confined to further education. It also oversees the transfer of property from local authorities to other types of educational institution which have left their control, such as grant-maintained schools.
The board reaches its decisions by negotiation wherever possible, but it is clearly sometimes necessary to bring stalled negotiations about a property transfer to a conclusion. As I have mentioned, the board has power to break such a log-jam by giving a direction.
The boards power of direction is not unbounded. There are two constraints. First, the board must act reasonably, and its decisions must be capable of withstanding scrutiny.
Mr. Jessel: On the question of withstanding scrutiny, will my hon. Friend deal with my question about what remedy exists if the Education Assets Board has reached a decision based on wrong assumptions about the facts because the official from the board visiting the site was bamboozled as to the extent to which the field had been used for sport in the past?
Mr. Boswell: I shall respond to my hon. Friend rather briefly on that matter. As he knows, an appeal has been lodged and it is for the parties to that appeal to bring forward evidence for the Secretary of States consideration in determining the appeal. I may wish to write to him further on the matter.
Secondly, the law prescribes how disputed property is to be treated by a local authority and college in any agreement between them. The assets board is bound by

1001
the same rules if an authority and college cannot agree and it has to determine the dispute. In particular, where an authority held or used property partly for the purposes of college and partly for other purposes, and where the nature of the property permits its division, the law requires the property to be divided between the college and authority as appropriate.
The boards approach to disputes is therefore primarily forensic. Was the property held or used wholly for the college or for other purposes of the authority? If it was held partly for each, can the property be divided between them? If so, what would be the appropriate division? If it cannot be divided, how should it be treated?
A determination by the board is not necessarily the last word in the dispute. Either the college or the authority may appeal against it to the Secretary of State, as the borough has done in the case of Craneford way, but the Secretary of States consideration of an appeal is also constrained. She acts in a quasi-judicial role, so she is bound by the rules of natural justice. Like the assets board, she is bound by the law regarding transfers and may not deviate from it.
As a result, the Secretary of State may not consider the views of third parties, such as local residents, in an appeal against a determination by the assets board. It is open to them to put their views to their local authority, or the college. However, it must remain for the authority or college to decide how to present its appeal.
I realise that some in Twickenham question whether the London borough of Richmond has adequately represented their views. I am afraid that the issue is not a matter for the Secretary of State. Residents must take up their concerns with the borough.
I know that it is a sore point with local residents that they have not so far had sight of the submissions to the assets board made by the borough and the college in support of their case regarding the playing fields, despite having asked both the board and my Department to release the submissions.
Their request for disclosure of legal argument submitted to the Secretary of State by a third party has raised novel and difficult questions of openness versus confidentiality. We have not decided whether the information sought should be properly released. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall reach a decision and write to him as soon as possible.
1002
It is a sore point that the law does not give third parties a statutory right to object to property transfers or the terms on which they take place.
Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Boswell: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I must complete my speech for the record. I shall write to him about any further points.
That rule is the case both when the assets board is considering a dispute and when the Secretary of State is considering an appeal against a determination by the board.
There are two reasons for that exclusion. First, the disputes concern the entitlement of the local authority or of the college to ownership of the property in question. Third parties who have no claim to property do not normally have the right to involve themselves in a dispute about its ownership.
Secondly, the position of third parties in relation to property transferred by a college is not altered by the transfer. Any legally enforceable rights which they had in relation to the property before it transferred remain intact after the transfer and any covenants or other restrictions to which the property was subject while it was owned by the authority continue to bind the college.
Moreover, although residents do not have a statutory right of objection to the transfer of property to a college, they continue to have such a right regarding the colleges development of that property, because colleges are bound by the same planning laws and regulations as other local bodies.
I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will be reassured to know that Richmond college would need planning permission to develop the playing fields, and that local residents could formally object if the college lodged a planning application. They have a further safeguard: the playing fields, both east and west, are classed as metropolitan open land. That is the urban equivalent of green-belt land, and there is a general presumption against inappropriate development within such land.
This is bound to have been a somewhat disappointing reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. I am sorry about that, but the debate has been valuable in casting light on a rather obscure but important area of public administration and in recording the views of my hon. Friend and his constituents on a matter that is clearly of considerable importance to them. He has represented their views with characteristic force and diligence.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's objectives for the European Union intergovernmental conference in 1996. [14939]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The IGC will be an opportunity to consolidate the achievements of the European Union and prepare for enlargement to the east. Our goal will be a Union that is flexible, efficient and responsive to popular concerns.
    Mr. Raynsford: The Foreign Secretary referred to consolidating achievements. Given the deteriorating position in Bosnia and the European Unions recorded failure in recent years to respond effectively to the tragedy in the former Yugoslavia, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the lack of co-ordinated action on security and foreign affairs is one of Europe's current weaknesses. Does he see the IGC as an opportunity to remedy that?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. We have worked closely with our European partners on Bosnia, and continue to do so. For example, 10 days ago we put together our policy again—particularly with the French and Germans, who are fellow members of the contact group. But, however well we co-ordinate our policy within the European Union—as we do—that in itself does not guarantee our ability to provide a solution to the conflict in Bosnia. The fighting in Bosnia will end when those who are doing the fighting decide to end it.
    Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest achievements, which should certainly be consolidated, is the creation of the single market? Will he consider giving more publicity to the results of that—for example, the greater success of our exporters in the Spanish market? Instead of an adverse trade balance of nearly £250 million, we now have a strong positive balance of well over £1 billion, which means many more jobs in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend is right, and he speaks from his own experience. The achievement of the single market is one of the big benefits of our membership of the European Union. It is not yet complete, however, and during the next few years we shall seek to ensure that it is complete and that the remaining protectionist devices that impede it are swept away.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On earlier occasions, the Foreign Secretary has confirmed that in drawing up the objectives for the IGC the Government will want to take account of the views of all political parties. What mechanisms does he propose for consultation—not least with former members of his party who have had access to the Home Secretary for such a discussion, have been denied access to the Chancellor for such a discussion and,
    1004
    presumably, are very keen to know whether the Foreign Secretary would be willing to meet them—and, if he did meet them, to what extent he would empathise with them?
    Mr. Hurd: My door is always open to the hon. Gentleman—and, of course, to my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Dykes: In the last few words of his original answer, my right hon. Friend referred to consulting the public properly. Does he agree that, if Ministers boldly tell the public more about the reasons for European Union combined policies, they will be both reassured and more enthusiastic? Will he assure us that from now on Ministers will do that?
    Mr. Hurd: We do that all the time; whether the media report it is a different matter.
    Ms Quin: Did the Foreign Secretary hear the chairman of ICL tell the Britain in the World conference this morning that negative and backward-looking views of Europe were undermining Britain's ability to be taken seriously in the world? How does he respond to the fact that the Conservative party is now the only party of its kind in the European Union that is not a full member of the European Peoples party? How will that isolation help the Tories to win allies in the 1996 process?
    Mr. Hurd: I cannot think that the nature of the connections between our MEPs and the European Peoples party is central to the issue.
    I heard Sir Peters remarks. He made a very good speech to the conference that is in progress today, and I think that his basic point was entirely right. It is in the interests not only of the British business community but of Britain as a whole for the House and the country, in the coming months, to work out coherently an approach to the future of the European Union with which we, as a nation, can be at ease. The Government are now doing that. It is perfectly possible to arrive at conclusions and proposals that will have wide support in the House and in the country.

    Anglo-Israeli Relations
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between Britain and Israel. [14940]
    Mr. Hurd: They are excellent. During the recent visit to Israel of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he and Mr. Rabin agreed that our relations have never been better.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the success of the visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on which he was accompanied by 30 leading industrialists? Does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agree that one issue affecting peace in the middle east is the continuing incarceration of Ron Arad, who has been a prisoner of the Iranians and their allies for eight and a half years?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree. My right hon. Friend met Mrs. Arad, and we will continue to do anything that we sensibly can to improve the prospects of solving the problem and bringing about Mr. Arad's release. My hon. Friend is right to say that opportunities for British trade

    1005
    with Israel have greatly improved. British exports with Israel rose from £586 million in 1992 to £1,032 million last year, which is good progress.
    Mr. Foulkes: Surely the Secretary of State is aware that the per capita income of the Palestine National Authority has decreased nearly 50 per cent. since it was established, and that only just over a quarter of the promised aid has been pledged. As the success of the middle east peace process depends on relieving people of economic distress, does not the Foreign Secretary need to match his fine words with a clear commitment to genuine assistance to the peace process?
    Mr. Hurd: Oh, dear. The hon. Gentleman should study the facts before he poses such questions. Britain is among the countries giving the quickest and most substantial help to the Palestinians with what they are trying to do in Jericho and Gaza. While my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in Israel, he handed over 25 Land-Rovers and 25 minibuses for the civilian branch of the police, and we have helped to pay police salaries. My right hon. Friend also announced £7 million of new bilateral aid for the Palestinians, in addition to the assistance that we give through Europe. Britain is among the foremost in encouraging the Palestinians to make a success of their new responsibilities.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in conducting Britain's relations with Israel he is responsible to Parliament? Does he accept that all parts of the House admire his courtesy in operating an open-door policy for all hon. Members? Does he agree that where such courtesies are not extended, that is not only insulting to individual hon. Members but denies them the opportunity properly to represent their constituents?
    Mr. Hurd: Over many years, I do not think that my hon. Friend has knocked on my door in vain.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current progress of the middle east peace process. [14941]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The recent visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan emphasised Britain's firm support for the peace process, which continues to offer the best hope for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.
    Mr. Janner: I much appreciated the recent visit by the Prime Minister and others to Israel. During the visit to Jordan, did Ministers form the impression that Jordan is playing an active, useful and important part in the peace process? If so, has not the time come to remit its debt to this country, which in any event is not likely to be paid?
    Mr. Hogg: Jordan is playing an important and continuing part in the peace process. The hon. and learned Gentleman may know that £46 million of Overseas Development Administration debt was transferred into grant, so it has effectively been written off. He may know also that there has been substantial rescheduling of debt, supported by the British Government and the Paris Club. The United Kingdom has contributed more than $200
    1006
    million so far. That rescheduling will expire in 1997, when we will be willing to consider prospects for further rescheduling.
    Mr. Rathbone: Despite what has been said in answer to previous questions, does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate the horror at Israels treatment of imprisoned Lebanese in southern Lebanon and of fishermen along the Lebanese coast, which has put thousands of Lebanese out of work, and at the continued aggression towards the country of Lebanon by Israeli forces and those under their control?
    Mr. Hogg: We stand by resolution 425, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, for the moment at least, the blockade of the fishing boats to which he referred has been discontinued, following strenuous representations by the British Government and others.
    The imprisonment to which my hon. Friend refers is a serious matter. The British Government, and I in particular, have made representations to the Israeli Government on a number of occasions. We welcome the fact that quite recently the Israeli Government released at least 32 prisoners from Khiam prison. We also welcome the fact that it was recently decided to allow some families into the prison for visits. I agree with the broad thrust of my hon. Friends remarks: there is much more to be done. People held without due process of trial should be released.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Minister accept that one of the most pleasing aspects of the Prime Ministers recent visit to Gaza was the press conference that he gave at the conclusion of his meeting with President Arafat? Given the Prime Ministers statement that the European Union is to take a leading role in the elections, which are due to take place once the second stage of the interim agreement has been agreed, can the Minister tell the House that Britain intends to be the main co-ordinator of the elections? Will he further assure the House that the many Members of this House who have had experience of helping with other elections in emerging democracies—I think particularly of the useful help they gave in the South African elections—will be called upon to help the Palestinians in the forthcoming elections?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I hope that there will be elections before the end of the year. They have taken much longer to be held than we would have wished; it is unlikely that negotiations on the electoral process will be concluded before 1 July, which suggests, I am afraid, that the elections will be held in October and not sooner.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was at the Prime Ministers initiative that the proposal for EU electoral observers was made. We are now in contact with our European partners to see how that can best be carried forward. I very much hope that British observers will be among those sent to watch the elections.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Cyprus to discuss its accession to the EU. [14943]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): We are in regular contact with

    1007
    the Cypriot authorities to discuss Cypruss application for EU membership. President Clerides visited London in January and met my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Waterson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the British Government are lending their full support to the efforts of the French presidency to broker a settlement in Cyprus that will involve an agreement to a customs union with Turkey—and also, importantly, the accession of Cyprus to the EU?
    Mr. Davis: I certainly agree with the view implicit in my hon. Friends comments—that the conclusion of the Foreign Affairs Council on Cypruss accession and the Turkish customs union is a good deal for all parties concerned. Accordingly, the United Kingdom gave strong support to the French presidency in its successful efforts to reach an agreement. That agreement was rightly welcomed by the Cypriot Government, and President Clerides singled out the United Kingdom among all the EU nations for its helpful contribution.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will be aware that Cyprus is one of a long list of countries that aspire to membership of the European Union. The list, as he knows, includes many countries from central and eastern Europe which will, perhaps, be watching these exchanges carefully. Where does Cyprus come in the pecking order?
    Mr. Davis: I do not think that there is a pecking order. The Corfu Council made it clear that Cyprus and Malta would be in the next stage of enlargement, as will the central European countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister agree that the Government could do much more to help in Cyprus, where there are still problems with missing people and refugees who, sadly and tragically, cannot return to their own homes? Is it not about time that the British Government did much more, in ministerial visits and using their good offices, especially as they are a guarantor power, to bring about a just and lasting solution?
    Mr. Davis: The best answer to the hon. Lady would be President Cleridess comment, when he said what a good job we did in supporting the accession discussions. We have taken a strong interest in the missing persons problem. Our view is that if both communities helped more, we would make further progress.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that we owe it to the memory of the British service men who died on active service in Cyprus to ensure that Cyprus becomes the kind of community that we want within the European Union before it is given any kind of nod and wink that it is likely to join?
    Mr. Davis: We look forward to Cyprus joining the Community. We would hope to see it join as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, and to join in such a way that all the people of Cyprus gain from accession.

    Arms Sales, Burma
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has held on the embargo on sales of arms to Burma; and if he will make a statement. [14944]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Our policy towards Burma, including the European Union arms embargo, is kept under review in our regular contacts with European Union partners.
    Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for his earlier responses to written questions. Is he not concerned, however, that other Government Departments are being less unequivocal than he is in supporting the arms embargo against Burma? The Department of Trade and Industry, for example, refers in written answers to information being commercially confidential. Given todays revelations about the Chief Secretary's supposed role in the sale of arms to other countries, does the Minister think that it is time that we had a full and open inquiry about the role of all Government Departments in the sale of arms to such regimes?
    Mr. Goodlad: Exports of arms and ammunition to all destinations are subject to strict controls according to agreed international criteria. No licences have been granted for the export of military equipment from the United Kingdom to Burma since the imposition of the European Union arms embargo in 1991.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend look beyond the question of the arms embargo to Myanmar to the rich potential that that market offers British business men? In particular, can his Department build on the excellent British week that was recently held in Rangoon, continue the admirable role in export promotion and encourage British business men to take advantage of a market that is of increasing attraction to regional neighbours, such as Japan, Singapore and Taiwan? British business men should be benefiting too.
    Mr. Goodlad: Trade between this country and Burma, with which we have historic links, is at a low level at the moment. Our exports last year amounted to no more than £13 million. Our industrial and trading reputation remains high. There is no obstacle to British firms exploring business that is not covered by the arms embargo. They must be in a position to take advantage of opportunities and to meet competition from rivals, but, of course, the Government offer them no financial support.

    Sanctions, Iraq
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects sanctions on Iraq to be eased or lifted. [14945]
    Mr. Hurd: The UN Security Council will modify sanctions against Iraq only when it is satisfied that Iraq has complied fully with all the relevant UN resolutions. The Iraqi Government know what needs to be done to comply: we look to them to do it.
    Mr. Cohen: If the Government are so dead set against lifting sanctions on Iraq, why did the Department of Trade and Industry grant communication licences to a British trade delegation visiting Baghdad last month? Instead of starving the dictator, are we not simply starving the people of Iraq? While few would object to the arms ban remaining, why not ease, for example, the oil embargo, so that humanitarian assistance can get through to the people?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are already Security Council resolutions that enable Iraq,

    1009
    under certain conditions, to sell oil and buy food and medicine for its people. We are actually strengthening that. We are putting forward plans with the American and Argentine delegations in the Security Council to make that easier, to offer more supplies and less stringent monitoring. If the Iraqi Government turn down this new initiative it will be perfectly clear that it is they and not the international community who are imposing suffering on their own people.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does not the unconfirmed report of the assassination attempt on the eldest son of Saddam Hussein clearly show that there is growing pressure on the evil Baathist regime in Iraq? Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the very time when we should not let up on sanctions? I urge him not to listen to the wishy-washy policies of the Labour party.
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have to be concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people. That is why we are taking this new initiative in the Security Council. It is up to the Iraqi Government to respond to that initiative rather than to impose, of their own wish, fresh suffering on their own people.
    Mr. Dalyell: At his convenience, could the Foreign Secretary undertake to give some personal reflection to the report that has been sent to him by Ryad Al Farid outlining the deaths of 400,000 or more Iraqi children in the past five years? There is no question, is there, of Her Majesty's Government endorsing military action against Baghdad?
    Mr. Hurd: It depends on what Baghdad does. The hon. Gentleman is correct if what he is saying is that there has been a great deal of hardship and suffering throughout Iraq—in the north, in the central area because of sanctions and in the south. In that respect the sanctions are self-imposed. Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 have for a long time enabled Iraq to sell its oil under certain conditions, and to pay part of the proceeds in compensation to its victims, using the rest to relieve the needs of its own people. I hope that people such as the hon. Gentleman, who throughout has shown sympathy, which I understand, for the people of Iraq, will also take every opportunity to urge the Iraqi authorities to accept measures that are for the benefit of their own people.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the consequences for the lives of those living in northern Iraq of the current military intervention by Turkey? What pressure is he bringing to bear upon Turkey, a fellow member of NATO, to discontinue that military action as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hurd: The Prime Minister spoke about that today at the Britain in the World conference. I have sent a message to the new Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Inonu, stressing our concern and hoping that Turkey will bring this military operation to an end and withdraw its troops at the earliest opportunity.

    Rwanda
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Rwandan Government to discuss the current situation in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement. [14946]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Prime Minister of Rwanda on 22 February during a visit to Britain. The Prime Minister of Rwanda made plain his thanks to Britain for the assistance that we have given in response to the tragic events in Rwanda. My noble Friend Baroness Chalker announced on Friday further aid commitments to Rwanda of £8.8 million, which brings our total aid to Rwanda since 1 January to £18 million.
    Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, because of the rising tension and crisis in the area, the donor countries should make a long-term commitment to prevent further attempts at genocide there?
    Mr. Baldry: We would all agree with that. The Rwandan Government have declared their intention to encourage refugees to return home. That is the highest priority. Of course, that Government clearly need help with reconciliation, reconstruction and rehabilitation policies. We are giving that help. We are providing further sums of money for immediate food aid and humanitarian needs, and looking to the future with financial support for human rights monitors, the war crimes tribunal and the reconstruction of the Rwandan judicial system. We shall continue to press the European Union and other multilateral organisations to respond as quickly and as effectively.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: When my hon. Friend discusses the position in Rwanda, will he take time to discuss the position in the neighbouring country of Burundi, which is much smaller, and where the increasing genocide is causing great hardship to the indigenous population? Will he inquire about what can be done?
    Mr. Baldry: We are clearly keeping the position in Burundi under close watch. The position in Rwanda and in Burundi makes clear the need to develop in Africa and elsewhere preventive diplomacy systems to try to identify and avert humanitarian tragedies before they occur.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister will know that I have just returned from Rwanda. May I assure him that the top priority is to provide a justice system, as Rwanda has been left with no police, no courts and few judges? I urge him, therefore, to respond positively to Rwandas request for British help in the training of a civil police force. Will he inject some urgency into the proceedings of the war crimes tribunal? Would it not be a disgrace for the international community if the anniversary of genocide in Rwanda were reached without a single ringleader being charged before the tribunal?
    Mr. Baldry: I am sure that, following his visit to Rwanda, the hon. Gentleman wishes to acknowledge that Britain has responded promptly and generously to Rwandas need for humanitarian assistance. Of course, this is more than a humanitarian problem. Rehabilitation and reconstruction are needed. We must work for a better future for Rwanda. That is why we are seeking to deal with specific problems, why the United Kingdom was the first bilateral contributor to the fund that was set up to finance human rights monitors, why it co-sponsored the Security Council resolution to establish an international

    1011
    criminal tribunal for Rwanda, why it has pledged £200,000 to fund UK personnel for the prosecutors office and why it is helping the judiciary.
    We have recently provided £100,000 in assistance to the Ministry of Justice, which is attempting to reconstruct the Rwandan judicial system. We are responding in every regard to the urgency of the need to build a better future for Rwanda.

    European Union Institutions
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to facilitate greater access for United Kingdom parliamentarians to European Union institutions. [14947]
    Mr. David Davis: A number of improvements have recently been put into effect, in particular by the House. In addition, Government Departments and the United Kingdom permanent representation in Brussels regularly advise and make arrangements for UK parliamentarians who wish to make contact with representatives of the European Union institutions.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Minister is well aware that a great deal of ignorance exists about Europe, especially among Conservative Back Benchers. Is it not about time that parliamentarians had proper access and positive leadership, with programmes to introduce Members of Parliament to a thorough knowledge of the matter? Is it not about time that the Government stood up for the European principle and said in a positive manner to Conservative Back Benchers and people outside that the country's future lies in Europe?
    Mr. Davis: A competition in ignorance is one of the few competitions that the hon. Gentleman might win, in the past six months, contact between Parliament and European Union institutions has increased dramatically. For example, the number of Select Committees that visit European Union institutions has increased significantly.
    More generally, the hon. Gentleman gave no credit to the Government for taking a lead. Largely at the UKs instigation, the European Unions workings have been made more accessible. Votes are routinely published, and the public have access to Council documents. There are open sittings of the Council, and the outcome of each Council is reported to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman attended to none of those matters.
    Sir Roger Moate: Would not the very best way to improve relations between hon. Members and the European Parliament be to revert to the old system whereby the House selected members of the European Parliament from among its own Members? That could be facilitated by the benign new Jopling regime under which we all enjoy life so much. Is not that form of subsidiarity—whereby we choose the method of appointing members of the European Parliament—so attractive that it should be on the 1996 agenda?
    Mr. Davis: It is open to my hon. Friend to write to the reflection group, of which I am a member, to make that recommendation. However, I do not think that it will have much chance of success.

    President of the United States
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the state of relations with the President of the United States of America; and if he will make a statement. [14948]
    Mr. Hurd: Relations with the United States Administration remain close and friendly at all levels. The Prime Minister will visit Washington next week for talks with President Clinton and senior members of the Administration and Congress.
    Mr. MacShane: Is it not a fact that, since the Prime Minister sent a couple of central office flunkies to try to sabotage President Clintons election and behaved like a petulant child over the taking of telephone calls so that President Clinton will now visit Paris, Moscow, Brussels and Bonn but not London, we are incapable of having an adult relationship with our oldest partner and ally under this Government, and that the policy of unsplendid isolation can end only when others are responsible for this country's foreign affairs?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the election and wrong about the American Presidents travel plans. The idea that our relationship with America depends on the timing of telephone calls between busy people is absurd and childish.
    Dr. Twinn: When engaging in discussions with the American Administration, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that we in Europe expect the United States to put pressure on Turkey to ensure that it does not exercise a veto over the peace settlement in Cyprus or, indeed, the widening of the European Union?
    Mr. Hurd: We are a guarantor power, with Turkey and Greece, of the Cyprus settlement. We work closely with the Americans and the Secretary-General of the United Nations to urge forward a settlement in Cyprus. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has just answered questions about the relationship between that and the accession of Cyprus to the European Union.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State agree, and share my concern about the fact, that the President of the United States perhaps pays too much attention to guidance on golf greens to support the so-called Irish Americans, forgetting that 60 per cent. of them are Scots-Irish? Is it not time that there was a campaign to inform the United States of its indebtedness, not only to the Scots-Irish, but to this nation as a whole?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows that the British Government, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in particular, have been extremely energetic in presenting the truths about Northern Ireland to the American people. He and his colleagues have recently been playing a vigorous part in that, which I welcome.
    There have been differences over Ireland with the United States Administration. In our view, it is important that substantial progress should be made on the decommissioning of weapons, and that any funds raised by Sinn Fein should not and could not be used to fund terrorism. These are matters that the Prime Minister will discuss with President Clinton. The responsibility for

    1013
    handling them rests with the Government who are responsible to the House, and that is accepted by President Clinton.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who go on about doom and gloom in respect of this so-called special relationship fail to take full account of opinion in the United States, not least that in Congress and the Senate? I hope that, like me, my right hon. Friend was heartened to note the other day that Senator Dole issued a press release in which, while urging the President to visit the United Kingdom for the VE day celebrations, he said that not only was Britain Americas closest ally but that America owed a great debt to us for our position in the second world war and that the ties between the two countries are very close and very deep?
    Mr. Hurd: Indeed, that is true. We cannot rest, though, simply on comradeship during a war 50 years ago, however important that was. That is why the particular ties which we have with the United States in defence, intelligence and other matters, remain strong and greatly in our interest. Of course the whole Anglo-American relationship does not just depend on relationships between Governments. Everybody—parliamentarians, members of all professions in this country—plays a part in that.

    United Kingdom Diplomats
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the role of United Kingdom diplomats abroad. [14949]
    Mr. Hurd: Their role is to protect and promote British interests: our prosperity, our security and our citizens abroad. The different elements of the work of the foreign service—political, economic and commercial—are intertwined, particularly at the level of ambassadors. Commercial work is already our largest single activity overseas and that emphasis is increasing further.
    Mr. Bayley: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, in the last year for which figures are available, Britain earned £8.9 billion from incoming tourism, which was more than twice as much as we earned exporting cars, three times as much as we earned exporting iron and steel and more than we earned from exporting fuel, including all the North sea oil? How much time will be spent by the 100 new commercial attaches, which he mentioned this morning, if I heard him correctly, on the Today programme, promoting tourism into Britain?
    Mr. Hurd: A lot. If the hon. Gentleman visits any of the embassies abroad he will see the emphasis which is put, as foreigners come into British embassies, on tourism and the opportunities for it. I am delighted that, during the lifetime and under the arrangements of this Government, the city of York has made progress in this matter.
    Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the very widespread view that our posts abroad and our diplomats do an excellent job, often in extremely challenging and personally dangerous conditions, on which they deserve to be congratulated? Does he also agree that an area of particularly good value for money in Foreign Office spending is the work of the British Council, which helps to promote the conditions in which
    1014
    British exports and services are exported, and includes tourism, which is extremely valuable? Does he agree that that is very much in line with the comments made by the Prince of Wales in an excellent speech earlier today?
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I entirely agree with what he says about the work of the British Council in promoting, for example, the excellence of education in this country. I am not in favour of grandeur or over-representation and over-staffing overseas. We have cut our representation in the United States by—I think—19 per cent. and in France by 10 per cent. I am emphatically not in favour of shoddy and second-rate representation of this country.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to urge British diplomats in India to intensify their activities and to persuade the Government of India that there is no prospect of securing lasting peace in Kashmir by mounting doomed elections, but that the Government must now recognise that urgent negotiations are necessary to secure a political settlement?
    Mr. Hurd: I have made it clear to the Government of India when I have been there the way forward which we think offers the best hope for Kashmir. They need to discuss the matter with the Government of Pakistan, as they agreed in the Simla agreement. They need, I believe, to start a successful political process in Kashmir. I do not think that the hon. Member is right to dismiss that out of hand. If—I agree that it is an if—it were possible to hold valid elections in Kashmir, it would be a big step forward. The third element in the equation is that those outside should refrain from encouraging violence in Kashmir.

    Canada
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Canada. [14950]
    Mr. Hurd: Our relations with Canada are excellent.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep sense of loyalty that the British people feel to their kith and kin in Canada, who have never failed to come to our rescue when this country has been threatened by brigands and that the British people are dismayed that we are not taking a firmer line in supporting Canada now that its people are being themselves threatened by the Spanish fishing fleet?
    Will my right hon. Friend please make it quite clear that this Government will have nothing to do with sanctions against Canada in this dilemma? Will he also please confirm that the intemperate language being used by Miss Emma Bonino has nothing to do with anything that the British Government would wish to express in this matter?
    Mr. Hurd: Perhaps my hon. Friend will telephone Canada house, which will confirm to her that twice in recent days the Canadians have been in touch with me to thank us for the stand that we are taking in the matter. I agree with her that we must avoid and discourage intemperate language by anyone. This is not some sort of adversarial contest in which we simply have to decide which side to whoop on. We are talking about part of the north Atlantic that everybody concerned has over-fished.

    1015
    There is agreement on what the total catch of Greenland halibut should be, but there is disagreement about how that catch should be shared—that needs to be ironed out.
    There is also disagreement about the enforcement necessary. We believe that a high degree of enforcement is necessary, but while the matter is being discussed, and, we hope, agreed, in our British view it is essential that there should be restraint—restraint by the Spaniards, in not fishing in the especially sensitive areas of the nose and tail of the grand banks, and restraint by the Canadians in not taking the law into their own hands and cutting nets, which, as we know from our experience with the Spaniards, is a dangerous thing to do.
    Mr. Galloway: The Governments posture over the past few days has shown the value of Britain's use of our special relationship with Canada and with Spain to try to bring about a peace process in the north Atlantic between those two fishing nations. Why can we not use our equally close and equally special relationship with India and with Pakistan to do the same thing over Kashmir?
    Mr. Hurd: Fortunately, I have already answered that question.

    Latin America
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to help promote Britains trade relations with Latin America. [14951]
    Mr. David Davis: Jointly with the Department of Trade and Industry, and in association with the Confederation of British Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is organising a three year Latin American trade campaign—Link Into Latin America—to promote trade and investment. My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, launched the campaign at the conference of our heads of mission in Latin America at the CBI Centrepoint on 17 January. Conferences, seminars, inward and outward trade missions, roadshows and lectures are being organised as part of the campaign. We have also strengthened our commercial representation in Latin America.
    Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he think that Latin America is an appropriate area for British investment? What is the extent of our investment in that continent, and can it be used as a basis for furthering even more strongly our trade relations with countries in Latin America?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend makes a very perceptive point. Our investment base in Latin America and the Caribbean, measured in 1992—the most recent year for which we have figures—amounted to about £13.4 billion. Also in that year—again, it is the most recent for which we have figures—we invested £1.4 billion in Latin America. That is larger than our investment in north America, and it represents a major source of leverage for us in delivering trade, especially exports, into Latin America.
    We try to use that as part of our strategy in dealing with Latin American Governments and in securing good conditions, such as double taxation arrangements, for British traders there, and also in encouraging large British companies to help smaller and medium-sized companies to go into that continent. That has been successful, and
    1016
    there has been an increase of 21 per cent. in exports to Latin America over the past year. I still think that the strategy could be made even more successful, and that is what we seek to do.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What is the state of our trade with Cuba at present, and what pressure are the Government putting on the United States Administration to end their absurd and illegal trade embargo on that island?
    Mr. Davis: Our trade with Cuba is perfectly reasonable. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy visited Cuba last year. The visit was successful and he met President Castro, who gave him a great deal of time. As for the relationship between America and Cuba, that is a matter solely for those countries.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Bearing in mind that the economic power of Latin America is greater than that of Africa, the middle east and southern Asia put together, and despite the fact that we have done exceptionally well there in the past few years, should not we redouble our efforts to work with the markets of Latin America which basically have a European trading tradition and look towards us with extreme good will?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is expert in that area and will know that the last decade has been something of a miracle decade for Latin America in terms of democracy, fiscal and monetary disciplines, stability and free trade. He is right to say that we should be putting more effort into that area, and the Government are doing just that. I know that my hon. Friend has attended at least one of the events with which we have been involved. He is quite right—21 per cent. growth in one year is not good enough.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is planning to support the peace process in the middle east. [14953]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We will continue to provide full political and economic support for the peace process, including through efficient and effective delivery of our aid package of £82 million over the three years 1994–97.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister reaffirm that it is of fundamental importance to the peace process that the people in the area—particularly the people of Gaza—see some immediate and tangible benefits resulting from that process, as estimates of unemployment in Gaza range from 43 per cent. to as much as 70 per cent? Will the Minister redouble his efforts with the international community to ensure that an economic package is produced which provides tangible assistance to the people of Gaza?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and that is why one important element of the programme that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced, by way of new money when he visited Gaza, was directed to labour-intensive schemes and projects. That is also why my right hon. Friend took with him a number of United

    1017
    Kingdom business men, some of whom are interested in developing commercial and manufacturing processes in Gaza. That is an important way forward.
    Mr. Allason: While the presence of British police officers in the Gaza strip to train Palestine Liberation Organisation personnel has clearly been a success, does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that there is widespread concern about the size of the aid package which was recently announced? Can he assure the House that there will be close supervision of that money, to ensure that it is spent on precisely the aid projects for which it is intended?
    Mr. Hogg: Yes. One of the great difficulties which we have faced is that the Palestinians have been slow in developing mechanisms for identifying worthwhile projects and for controlling expenditure. We welcome the progress that they have made in that area, but more work needs to be done. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need for a careful auditing of expenditure.

    UNAVEM III Forces
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the preparedness of UNAVEM III forces to keep the peace in Angola when called upon. [14955]
    Mr. Hurd: Following the report of his special envoy and the undertakings given by the parties, the Secretary-General announced on 27 March that the UN would proceed with preparations to deploy the logistic and support elements for UNAVEM III in keeping with its resolution 876.
    As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement told the House on 23 February, we have agreed in principle to provide a 600-strong logistics battalion to help the initial deployment of infantry units provided by other member states.
    Mr. Worthington: After many years, there is a fragile peace in Angola, but there is great apprehension that the UN will follow in Angola previous failures with its peacekeeping forces in Somalia and Rwanda, where it took many months to deploy forces. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that those UN peacekeeping forces will be deployed the moment they are called for?
    Mr. Hurd: A guarantee is not really required from us, as we have declared our willingness and are preparing accordingly. The guarantee is required from the parties concerned. Despite what I just said, the deployment which is envisaged can be completed and fulfilled only if the parties on the ground fulfil their commitments.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend seen the problems that the Ministry of Defence now appears to have in recruiting people into the Army and the fact that we seem to be making soldiers redundant and have low numbers of people in the forces? Is he satisfied that, when we make commitments to the United Nations and other peacekeeping operations, we shall have the right number of troops in place and that the morale of those troops will be satisfactory? Will he take urgent steps to talk to the Ministry of Defence about the position in the Army, which my constituents find troubling?
    Mr. Hurd: It is not really a matter for me, as my hon. Friend knows. My perception of it, however, is that, once
    1018
    decisions announced in Front Line First have been carried through, our armed forces will enter a period of stability—their force levels will remain and their equipment will improve. They can then look forward to a period of stability during which we can respond where we think it wise and necessary in our own interest to the kind of appeals that we are discussing.

    Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
    Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the nuclear weapon state signatories to the non-proliferation treaty define their nuclear strike capacity in terms of explosive firepower. [14956]
    Mr. David Davis: The United Kingdom and the United States have released information on the total explosive yield of their nuclear weapon stockpiles. In May 1994, President Mitterrand gave figures for the numbers of French operational nuclear warheads. Neither Russia nor China has, to our knowledge, made official statements on the size of their stockpiles by any measure.
    Mr. Cook: Is it true that the British Government have always justified their retention of the nuclear deterrent, despite the fact that they are a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, on the basis that they must retain a minimum nuclear deterrent? What is meant by minimum? Do we need to be able to obliterate a small country or to take out a medium-sized country? How much of the world do we need to be able to devastate in order to justify retention of such weapons?
    Mr. Davis: It is interesting to see the resurrection of CND on the Labour Back Benches. Since 1990, we have reduced our nuclear weapons by some 25 per cent., to what we judge to be a minimal level. That has involved halving free-fall weapons, the complete non-deployment of surface maritime weapons, and a self-imposed restriction on the number of missile warheads used on Trident. That is a reduction of some 25 per cent. in explosive power, which is what we consider a minimum level of deterrence—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) does not believe in deterrence at all.
    Mr. Gallie: Is it not true that the benefit of nuclear weapons is their deterrent effect not, as suggested by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), their take-out effect?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. The collapse of the Soviet Union has led to information being available that shows that our stance on cruise missiles and Trident, contrary to the Labour partys view throughout the 1980s, was one factor that led to the Soviet Unions collapse and the end of the cold war.

    Bosnia
    Ms Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of peace negotiations in Bosnia. [14957]
    Mr. Hurd: With our Contact Group colleagues we are still working hard to secure a negotiated settlement. We have reached a critical stage, with the security situation on the ground deteriorating. The Contact Group met in

    1019
    London this week and is urging all sides to respect the cessation of hostilities agreement, and calling on the Bosnian Serbs to accept the Contact Group plan as a starting point for negotiations. We are working hard for peace in Bosnia. Our forces and aid effort in Bosnia have won deserved praise from the Bosnian Government for their effectiveness and dedication. We want them to continue their work but, as we have often said before, our forces can remain only if they can carry out their tasks at an acceptable level of risk.
    Ms Hodge: If and when we eventually reach a peace settlement to end the conflict, will the Secretary of State confirm that that will include guarantees on human rights? Will he, in particular, confirm that there will be guarantees that refugees and victims of ethnic cleansing can return to their homes without the danger of persecution and a guarantee that the international community will pursue those guilty of war crimes?
    Mr. Hurd: Procedures about war crimes are in hand; that is established. It is relatively easy to negotiate paper guarantees but relatively difficult to put them into practice. We must find a way in which that war can be brought to an end. That will depend on acceptance by all the parties concerned—by all the combatants. We can buttress that from outside, but the essence is not the guarantees that we draft from outside but the will for peace inside that country.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Secretary will have seen the statement on Monday by the UN spokesman in Sarajevo that the UN will use air power and limited strikes if the Bosnian Serbs attack civilians in the safe havens. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, once that threat has been made, it must be carried out if civilians are attacked? Is not the lesson of Bosnia that every time that our bluff is called it weakens our authority? Will he take the opportunity to express his resolve that we will not back down this time?
    Mr. Hurd: The principle is clear. It has been clear for a long time that NATO air strikes may be called in by the UN—that is perfectly true—and it has been used to good effect. However, it is no good generalising in the House as to when and where that should be done. The circumstances in which that can effectively be done must depend on the judgment of NATO and of the UN commanders on the ground, including our own General Smith.

    Consular Service
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made to the consular service in recent years; and if he will make a statement. [14958]
    Mr. Baldry: Consular work is a front-line activity for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Our strong commitment to providing a high quality service to British nationals in distress overseas remains consistent in the face of increasing demand.
    Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that in many ways the consular personnel are the unsung heroes of the diplomatic service? Can my hon. Friend assure the
    1020
    House that the representatives of the travel industry are effectively telling British travellers what consular services are available to them when they travel abroad?
    Mr. Baldry: Our consular service does first-class work throughout the world. Nearly 9 million British nationals live overseas and about 34 million Britons travel abroad each year. Each year, we help about 15,000 Britons in difficulties throughout the world. I am pleased to say that we work closely with the travel industry to ensure that, before going overseas, people can have objective and fair advice about the destinations to which they are traveling.
    We are grateful for the help and co-operation that the travel industry, the Federation of Tour Operators and the Association of British Travel Agents are giving us in ensuring that all travellers overseas can have safe and happy holidays.
    Mr. Flynn: Is it not symptomatic of the antiquated nature of our consular and diplomatic services that a constituent reports to me that in the audiovisual room in Tanzania the only two videos available are one of a royal wedding and one of country pursuits in Devon? [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear.] Even after the cuts made in Paris, is it not ridiculous to pour millions of pounds into those prestigious consuls and embassies while in countries of great importance, such as the Baltic states, we have only one person in each country? When will the diplomatic service enter the present century?
    Mr. Baldry: Practically every point that the hon. Gentleman made is wrong. He professes to be an expert on the Baltic states; we actually have three embassies in the Baltic states. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seeks to visit a few more embassies and posts overseas. If he does so, he will witness the excellent work that is being carried out by our diplomatic staff and consuls and ambassadors throughout the world. It falls badly from the mouths of Opposition Members when so many of our diplomatic staff are working hard for Britains interests, often in very difficult circumstances, throughout the world.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend emphasise to the British consuls and other diplomats in the Baltic states and in the other former state trading nations how valuable they are in guiding British business men through that labyrinth?
    Mr. Baldry: Yes, I suspect that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of business men in the UK today who would give testament to the help and guidance that they have received from British embassies and high commissions throughout the world in winning further orders for Britain. As a nation, we export more per head than Japan and the United States. We are assisted in that work by our diplomatic effort throughout the world.

    Ethiopia
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights record in Ethiopia; and if he will make a statement. [14960]
    Mr. Baldry: We are concerned about the human rights situation in Ethiopia and take every opportunity to stress to the transitional government the importance of making progress in this area.
    Mr. Timms: Is the Minister aware that Amnesty International says that there is an emerging problem of disappearances among Government opponents in Ethiopia? Has he seen the statement issued in London on 15 March by the Ethiopian asylum support group expressing its concern that human rights violations are spreading from the political to the religious, social and cultural spheres? What representations will the British Government make to the transitional Government in Ethiopia about those matters?
    Mr. Baldry: I am aware of Amnesty Internationals concerns and I have seen the report. I know that a large number of Ethiopians live in the hon. Gentlemans constituency. Due to the Ethiopian civil war, we operated an exceptional leave policy from late 1980 to April 1993. We think that the situation in Ethiopia has now improved to the point where the policy of granting exceptional leave to remain can be discontinued.
    Of course, the Home Office will deal with all applications on their individual merits, but it may assist the hon. Gentlemans constituents to know that no Ethiopians who have benefited already from the exceptional leave policy will be required to leave the country when their existing leave expires, unless there are particular reasons in individual cases for asking them to do so.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is reported in this mornings edition of The Independent that, before he became a Cabinet Minister, the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken)—to whom I have given notice of my intention to raise this matter—was director of a company which exported arms to Iran, contrary to the Government embargo. Has the right hon. Member offered to make a statement to the House to the effect that he observed due diligence at that time, and that he therefore broke no commands?
Madam Speaker: The answer to the hon. Gentlemans question is no; I have not been informed that any hon. Member is seeking to make a personal statement.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Monday, I met the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) at Darlington station, and he told me that he had returned from Stockton-on-Tees where he had made a visit to the Stockton, North constituency. Yesterday, I read in the newspapers that he had in fact visited my constituency, without giving prior notice to me in accordance with the courtesies that you expect to be extended to fellow Members of Parliament. I have given the right hon. Gentleman notice of my intention to raise this matter as a point of order today. Will you reiterate your guidance to Members of Parliament about the matter?
Madam Speaker: The entire House knows the views I hold on the matter. I find myself having to repeat them several times a week, and that should be entirely unnecessary. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) should have informed the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that he intended to attend a public engagement in the constituency of the hon. Member. It is to be regretted that the right hon. Member for Copeland apparently did not do so.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you are keenly aware of your role as custodian of the integrity of our democratic system. In recent years, many of the powers of your office which your predecessors exercised have been usurped by other undemocratic, unelected bodies outside the Parliament. Yesterday, one of my constituents was removed from the organisation Health Promotion Wales, because he was a whistleblower and had exposed corruption within that body. Is it not time that you exercised your powers and took back from those unaccountable, unelected bodies the powers that should be yours and Parliaments?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seems to be giving me powers which I do not possess. If the House wishes to invest me with those powers, I will be quite prepared to accept such responsibilities. Until that time, I shall carry out the powers that I already have in the House.
Sir Donald Thompson: I have in my hand a statement completely exonerating my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), but it would be out of order for me to read it.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. I have already dealt with the matter.
Mr. Andrew Miller: As you will have noticed, Madam Speaker, at Question Time today I have been pursuing matters relating to the arms trade with Burma. My point of order for you is not about that, as the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), replied to my question courteously and in great detail.
My concern is that the Department of Trade and Industry replied to me in a very negative way, saying that it cannot provide us with information, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, but as you know, from time to time the Department of Trade and Industry is the first to release such information to the press. I know that you deprecate information being released in that way. Is there any mechanism by which we can get some information on this most important matter?
Madam Speaker: I am not totally clear to what the hon. Gentleman is alluding, but I am concerned to see that, when information is available, it is made available to the House through individual hon. Members. I should be grateful, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman would leave with my office all the information he has, so that I might examine it properly.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Have you had any request from the Prime Minister to make a statement about what steps he plans to take in respect of the involvement of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in selling arms to Iran against the embargo? It is not a matter for him, but one for the Prime Minister as to whether he can remain in the Cabinet.
Madam Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have Prime Ministers Questions tomorrow, and if hon. Members are lucky enough to catch my eye, they may be able to put that question direct to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Tony Marlow: You will remember that, not very long ago, we used to have 20 minutes set aside for questions on what was then the European Community and is now the European Union. The situation has changed, in that, as Delors said, the time will soon come when 80 per cent. of political issues are decided at the European level rather than—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Do be quiet. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Marlow, let me hear what you have to say.
Mr. Marlow: I do not often find difficulty making myself heard. That was the situation. Now Europe is a more significant political issue. I know there are many ways in which it could be discussed and debated, but it is very important that the Executive comes under cross-examination and questioning on this subject. I think today we have had one substantive question on Europe. It may be that that is the way Members want it, but there is a certain amount of chance as to whether these questions get brought forward.

1025
If there were a separate time for asking questions on Europe, I am quite sure that right hon. and hon. Members would put down those questions, so that the matter could be properly considered. Would it be possible that we could consider bringing back the procedures we had several years ago, so that we can focus in Question Time more directly on the European issue?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I do not deal with the rota, but I noticed that there was only one substantive question today on Europe. The hon. Gentleman is sitting very close to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and he might like to take the matter up with him.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I was concerned to see on todays Order Paper my name appended to a number of dubious amendments to the Atomic Energy Authority Bill. I am sure that that was inadvertent, and I am equally sure it is just as embarrassing to the hon. Member for Coventry North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), with whom I get on very well. I am sure that he would be the first to say that, other than our surnames, we have very little in common. I wonder whether you would have a word with the relevant authorities, Madam Speaker, to ensure extra vigilance in future, so that this embarrassing faux pas cannot occur again.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) is serving on the Standing Committee, so obviously there has been some misunderstanding and some misprinting. The hon. Gentleman has cleared up todays matter, and I shall do what I can to ensure that it does not occur in future.

BILL PRESENTED
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. John Austin-Walker, supported by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Jimmy Hood and Rev. Martin Smyth presented a Bill to make provision in relation to persons disqualified, or subject to proceedings for disqualification, under section 46 of the National Health Service Act 1977; to make provision about the constitution of the tribunal under that section; to make corresponding provision for Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 31 March, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

Eradication of Mink
3.38 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to eradicate mink from the United Kingdom.
A brown little face with whiskers, a grave round face with the same twinkle in its eye that had first attracted his notice. Small neat ears and thick silky hair. It was the Water Rat—
and not a mink, as might be expected. Ratty in The Wind in the Willows, as described in that quotation, was in fact a water vole: a vegetarian mammal much loved since Kenneth Grahame wrote his book, and once common throughout the country. But no longer.
Last summer, I canoed from Blaby to Westminster with my brother to raise money for a hospice in Leicestershire. We travelled 137 miles, mostly on the Grand Union canal; we did not see a single water vole. Having grown up not far from that canal and having been used to seeing water voles in abundance, I made some inquiries, and discovered that water voles were being wiped out by mink.
It is a fair bet that most hon. Members who are present, and most people in the country, have never seen a wild mink. They are not easy to spot, like pollution or visible damage to our countryside; but the fact that we do not see them does not mean that they are not causing serious harm to our wildlife.
They are rapidly destroying the water vole population, as well as having a significant effect on game and coarse fishing. They will kill water fowl, particularly moorhens, and any ground-nesting birds; they are also skilled at climbing trees. Indeed, it is alleged that they have destroyed significant numbers of kingfishers in their nests: kingfishers live near and beside water. As they reach offshore islands, we should recognise the impact that this alien introduction will have on the population of sea birds, including gannets and puffins. They also pose a growing threat to poultry farms, and have been seen attacking lambs.
The impact of the mink on our indigenous wildlife is not appreciated because it is not seen, but it is neverthess immensely serious. Of particular note is the excellent study of the distribution and changing status of the water vole, published in 1993 and carried out by the Vincent Wildlife Trust. The water vole is the optimum prey size for mink, and has developed no escape mechanism against the predator.
The authors noted that the link between mink and the decline in the number of water voles is now incontrovertible, and pointed out that the mink had exterminated the muskrat from several sites in North America, and was thus quite capable of doing such damage here. They stated:
The effect of mink on the water vole is serious and may well provide the final straw causing extinction of the species in many areas.
Mink were brought to this country from North America for fur farming before the second world war. By 1962, there were some 700 fur farms, many of which were run from sheds in back yards. Inevitably, some mink escaped. Some small-scale fur farmers, giving up their businesses, released their stock—and there has been the equally astonishing sight of so-called animal welfare groups deliberately releasing the animal into the wild.

1027
In 1957, the first breeding wild mink were positively identified in Devon; now, not 40 years later, there are reckoned to be 110,000 wild mink, which have spread throughout most of the country and have even succeeded in reaching the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides by swimming across the ocean from the mainland.
If we leave aside the possibility of pumas on Bodmin moor, the mink is the only alien predatory mammal that man has been foolish enough to introduce into this country. We currently hear a good deal about the New Zealand flatworm and the effect that it is having on earthworms and our ecology as a whole. Perhaps we should look more closely at the effect of alien introductions into New Zealand; but my choice of comparable man-made ecological disaster would be Ascension island—once known as Bird island—where rats came with sailors, who introduced cats to catch the rats, but the cats ate all the ground-nesting birds. The island is no longer known as Bird island.
Man has created another potential ecological disaster with mink in this country. In Leicestershire, in my constituency, water voles are now scarce on the River Soar, as was pointed out earlier this month in the Leicester Mercury. That newspaper is running a campaign to clean up the River Soar; what a tragedy it is that water voles are unlikely to benefit. Nearby, mink have been seen in the middle of Market Harborough on the River Welland, and they are certainly present on the Grand Union canal.
The Government recognised in the Mink (Keeping) Order 1992 that it is desirable to destroy any mink at large. The question arises whether it is possible to eradicate feral mink from the United Kingdom. I believe that it is possible, and so, with more authority, does the director of the Institute of Zoology. The success of the coypu control organisation that eradicated the coypu from the UK should be studied carefully by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
There are many similarities between coypu and mink. The coypu was imported for its fur—nutria—in the 1920s. Many escaped, and the population rose to a maximum of 200,000 in the wild in the late 1950s. That figure was dramatically reduced by the cold winter of 1962 and by a trapping campaign in the 1960s. The Ministry of Agriculture started a new campaign in April 1981, employing 24 trappers. The coypu was eradicated in six years, by 1987.
Man, the minks only predator in the UK, currently undertakes localised trapping and catches several thousand a year. It is appropriate to mention and to pay tribute to mink hunts, of which there are 20. They disrupt breeding programmes, and have a significant local impact. A successful eradication programme would inevitably end the sport of mink hunting, which should appeal at least to many who supported the recent anti-hunting Bill. It would lead also to a ban on the distasteful practice of farming mink for their fur.
If we are to eradicate mink from the United Kingdom, the danger of further escapes must be removed. The last recorded was in 1989. There are now only 12 registered mink farms in England, compared with 52 six years ago.
My Bill proposes that, acknowledging the desirability of conserving our native wildlife by eradicating an alien predator, the Government establish and fund a research
1028
project. There has been far too little research, and the project would study the mink, its distribution and the feasibility of its eradication. The project team could make recommendations on how best to eradicate the mink. It would gather support from many quarters, which might assist funding an eradication programme.
The most effective way of destroying mink is to catch them in live traps and then shoot them. That also means that no other animals are harmed by the trapping. The project would almost certainly want to run a trial eradication programme in a specific local area, such as a river system. My own preference would be the Isle of Lewis. If proved to work there, it could also work throughout the British isles. Such a research project would demonstrate the feasibility of eradicating mink, and also show that costs need not be exorbitant.
My Bill is a conservation measure, to conserve our native wildlife—much of which is threatened by the foolishness of human behaviour in introducing mink. It will be supported by all who really care about our wildlife and countryside, and who appreciate the serious nature of the situation. Recently, there have been several excellent articles on the matter in The Times and The Sunday Telegraph, and in The Sun by my noble Friend Lord Tebbit, who was once famously and unfairly likened in this Chamber to a semi-house-trained polecat.
I considered calling my Bill the Water Vole Conservation Bill. Some hon. Members may oppose it because they fail to understand the damage done to our ecology by feral mink. To them, I quote Kenneth Grahams Ratty, whose descendants are most affected by the problem:
But dont you see what it means—you dull-witted animals?
I commend the Bill to the House.
3.48 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: When The Wind in the Willows was written, there were no feral minks on the river bank. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), but I am not convinced by the case that he made. I have read a range of studies of the impact of the feral mink on the countryside, and I have reached different conclusions from the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that it is feasible to contemplate the eradication of feral mink, on economic or ecological grounds.
During the 1970s, the Ministry of Agriculture decided to cease its efforts to control mink. The hon. Gentleman was right to remind the House that mink were imported to North America for fur farming, which must be one of the most distasteful of the many abuses perpetrated by humans on animals. It was the escapes from those fur farms that led to the establishment of wild mink in the British countryside.
The way that fur breeders turned mink out into the countryside when the fur trade collapsed in the 1950s represented the height of irresponsibility. I agree with the hon. Member for Blaby that the animal liberation people who turn mink loose in the countryside are doing no favours to the mink or to the native inhabitants, but it is worth reminding the House that there are still mink and arctic fox farms in this country. Seeing the wretched state in which mink are kept in some of those places makes it easy to realise how quickly they can escape. Some of the people who farm mink make Arthur Daley seem like Lord Curzon.

1029
Mink should never have been imported into this country. Those who profited from that are responsible for todays problem.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned coypu. I think that the comparison with the eradication of coypu from parts of East Anglia is not meaningful. Trapping coypu involved professional trappers; and eradication did not take seven years, either. My information is that it took about 15.
If mink are creating local problems in some areas, as they are, they can be dealt with by humane trapping. Mink are rather like Back Benchers—always curious—so it is easy to trap them. Alternatively, mink-proof fencing can be set up. The Ministry of Agriculture can give plenty of advice to the hon. Member for Blaby and others who have problems of this sort.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Vincent Wildlife Trust report in the context of the impact of mink on water voles, referring to that impact as the last straw. But he did not tell the House the other reasons for the decline of the population of water voles: habitat loss, changes in waterway management, and pollution. Certainly the mink came along and put additional pressure on the voles, but it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman omitted to mention these other points in the study.
Other studies have shown that otter hunting too had an impact on the increasing number of mink. Wherever otters breed, there are lower numbers of mink. Many other studies have shown that mink do not present the problem that the hon. Gentleman describes. There are ways of controlling feral mink populations in parts of the country where they might cause a problem.
Mink hunting is unacceptable and thoroughly ineffective. It is becoming the blood sport of the summer that fills the gap between the end of one fox hunting
1030
season and the beginning of the next. The one thing the British countryside does not need is another bunch of bloodthirsty sadists in waders damaging our river banks. No method of controlling numbers should be turned into a sport for perverts with a bloodlust. The people who hunt mink are far worse than their quarry. Indeed, they are the same people who wiped out the native otter.
I am not convinced that the mink constitutes the ecological threat to the countryside that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, and I shall oppose his motion.
MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business).
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that the very fact that this Division is taking place will mean that valuable time is taken out of the debate on education, in which many hon. Members wish to take part, but which the Labour party is taking time to prevent from starting?
Madam Speaker: I should have thought that that was rather obvious.
Question agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Rupert Allason, Mr. Bernard Jenkin and Mr. Iain Duncan Smith.

Eradication of Mink
  ERADICATION OF MINK
  Mr. Andrew Robathan accordingly presented a Bill to eradicate mink from the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 92.1]
Opposition Day
[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Education Cuts
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I have also imposed a limit of 10 minutes on all speeches by Back-Bench Members today, as a great number of hon. Members are seeking to take part.
3.56 pm
Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move,
That this House asks the Government to reconsider its position on the Teachers Pay Review Body award for 1995–96, because of the impact of increased pupil numbers, and the threat to standards, opportunity and achievement from the shortfall in funding experienced in many local authority areas and the vast majority of schools in England and Wales.
The time has come for Conservative Members to make up their minds whether they are in favour of saving the standard and opportunity for education for children in their schools and communities, or whether they are in favour of saving their own skins by attempting to salt away cash for a tax bribe in the general election.
On this occasion, they cannot win, because if they take away money, as they are doing, if they insist that tax cuts in November and possibly in 1996 are to be preferred to putting resources into maintaining the number of teachers, into keeping down class sizes in their schools, they will be punished as surely as night follows day by an electorate who are sick of duplicity, of people pretending that they are interested in childrens education, in what is happening in their schools, and then turning up in the House and voting the opposite way.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blunkett: Not at the moment.
We are not asking Conservative Members to condemn their Government and their Cabinet. The British people are doing that effectively enough as it is. We are asking Conservative Members merely to request their Government to think again. Every Conservative Member who votes today against our motion, who votes down the opportunity for the Cabinet to give a second thought to what is happening to children in our schools throughout the country, will surely reap their reward, because we will ensure that every newspaper, local radio station and elector in his or her area knows which way that Member voted.
Do Conservative Members back the Secretary of State for Education, who whispers in dark corners to education corespondents that she cares about what is happening in schools and that she has been fighting a battle with her colleagues in Cabinet? Do they do that, or do they back those who believe that she has had enough?
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in Leicestershire, Labour councillors supported Liberal Democrat councillors in producing a budget that will mean cuts, whereas the Conservative councillors on Leicestershire county council produced a
1032
budget which would have increased spending on education by 2.85 per cent.? The increase is down to just over 2 per cent. because of a Labour-Liberal Democrat budget. What will the hon. Gentleman tell the newspapers about the way that councillors in Leicestershire voted?
Mr. Blunkett: People will say, Do we believe those who have inflicted these cuts from the centre on every county and on every school in the country, or do we believe parents, teachers and governors who know what is happening in their schools? It is not Labour and Liberal councillors who have inflicted these cuts: it is Conservative Members and their Cabinet.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Blunkett: I will not give way.
The Secretary of State knows the truth. She is kind, well-meaning and very likeable. Unfortunately, she is totally ineffective. She is overridden and overruled, a schoolmistress who has turned into the bedevilled schoolgirl. The House does not need to take my word for that: it can take the word of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who only last week said:
Gillian is making excellent progress and a satisfactory amount of finance is on offer.
Gillian is not making satisfactory progress: she is not making any progress at all. She has pleaded with her Cabinet colleagues for more money. While the Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade wring their hands and tell the people of Oxfordshire that they are in favour of looking after their children, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who are in command.
Dame Angela Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman speaks about progress. Perhaps he could help the debate to make progress. How much money would the Opposition donate for the proposition that he puts to the House? It would help the House to know how much money the Opposition would like to spend to replace the so-called cuts in education.
Mr. Blunkett: The right hon. Lady speaks about so-called cuts in education. That shows no sense of reality about what is happening in the classroom. [Interruption.] I will answer the question, which is more than Conservative Members ever do on the radio—when they are not too frightened go on radio to answer questions about their policies. I will take questions and lectures from Conservative Members when they tell me about the £744 million that they spent on changing the national curriculum, changing tests and bedeviling education with turmoil for six years.
I have made it absolutely clear, and I repeat, that, when an independent review body report is accepted by a Government who have abolished negotiations between employers and employees, they have an absolute obligation, moral and political, to pay for it. We would have paid for it from moneys that the Government have cut from the projected expenditure on education that they promised at the general election. They promised tax cuts, but they increased taxes. They promised to increase public spending, but they are cutting it for every child in the land.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend is correct when he says that people out there know precisely who is to blame. On Saturday, 20,000 people went on a

1033
march through central London. Most of them had never been on a demonstration before. They included parents, school kids, and people who had never been to London. They know who is guilty in this case.
Another 5,000 from Derbyshire have been demonstrating today. To a man and a woman, they know who the guilty people are. It would be relatively easy to find the money if we started using the £35 billion that has been spent keeping more than 4 million people idle, and if we started taking back the £50 billion that has been given to the richest 10 per cent. in tax cuts. That is the way to improve our education system. Let us have smaller classes and more teachers employed.
Mr. Blunkett: I always welcome the powerful interventions of my hon. Friend. He is backed today by 3,000 people from Derbyshire—[Interruption.] No, I said that he was backed today by 3,000 people. [Interruption.] He is backed by thousands of people from Derbyshire. I would send Conservative Members out there to count them but, unfortunately, not many of them would be up to it.
Let me quote not Labour Members, parents, governors or teachers, but the words of Conservative Members. What about the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), a former Minister with responsibility for education? Four former Ministers with responsibility for education have publicly announced that they believe that the Government should think again. We believe that even the Secretary of States predecessor thinks that she should think again. Some of us suspect that the right hon. Lady thinks that she should think again, but she cannot get enough support from Conservative Back Benchers.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blunkett: No. The hon. Gentleman should listen to the quote from the hon. Member for Wantage, who said:
But in my view, the Government response to the teachers pay award is quite indefensible.
No Labour Member could put it more clearly than that; nor could we put it more clearly that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who today repeated on Channel 4 that he felt that he could not vote with the Government tonight unless more money was made available to his county of Warwickshire.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Blunkett: Which of those wonderful people shall I give way to? I give way to the hon. Member over there on the right.
Madam Speaker: Mr. Paul Marland, who has been standing a long time.
Mr. Paul Marland: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the bind that Gloucestershire schools find themselves in is the result of the profligacy of Liberal and Labour councillors on Gloucestershire county council, and that debt servicing is the third biggest item in that councils budget? That is why the council is threatening to impose cuts on schools.
Mr. Blunkett: The response will be clear and decisive in both the local elections on 5 May and in
1034
the general election. People will deal clearly with Conservative Members who wring their hands and wash them of their responsibility, including their responsibility for other peoples children.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Blunkett: I shall not give way. I have given way sufficiently for the time being.
Conservative Members, and certainly the right hon. Ladys colleagues in the Cabinet, would have understood what she was talking about in her famous letter telling them what the results of their actions would be if their children were in state education at state schools. The more people send their children to state education and state schools, the more they understand what is going on. If I let them in, some of the Conservative Members who are desperate to intervene might tell us immediately where their children go to school, where they went to school, or what sort of cuts their children are experiencing. This is not a game; it is about childrens education. This is about every parent in every school that is affected feeling the result of Tory party policy. This is about those heads and governors trying to carry out their responsibilities having to sit down in the next three months and decide which teacher, which care assistant, which technician and which school secretary should be given a redundancy notice. That is what it is about: real people and real children in education up and down the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman over there.
Madam Speaker: I think it was the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold).
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Both my daughters are in state schools in Kent, How would the hon. Gentleman justify funds being taken away from that school and all other schools in Kent by the Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled county council, which has spent between £100,000 and £250,000 on propaganda to try to talk parents out of voting for what they have always wanted for their schoolsgrant-maintained status?
Mr. Blunkett: I just wonder what the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation is doing with public money provided by the Department for Education. It has spent £250,000 in the past year on hospitality alone for those campaigning for grant-maintained status, including providing hotel accommodation and travelling costs for heads and teachers from grant-maintained schools, who clearly have time to travel the country persuading others.
After the intervention last time from a Kent Member about how people were spending money on take-away meals in the epitome of the competitive tendering, out-of-house catering of the future, I will take no more interventions from hon. Members from Kent.
Self-delusion is now commonplace in a Cabinet that is completely split down the middle on education.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Blunkett: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Let us take the Prime Ministers words on 16 March. He claimed in the House that there were
two administrators for every three teachers in education.—[Official Report, 16 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 1021.]
This is a Prime Minister who did not pass anything at school, never mind the 11-plus.
Mr. Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blunkett: No, I am making a point that I intend to finish.
The Prime Minister claimed on 16 March during Prime Ministers questions that there were two administrators for every three teachers. We have checked that out: 109,000 of the non-teaching staff turned out to be people employed directly under the devolution of budgets under local management of schools as school caretakers, clerical workers, care assistants and technicians; 150,000 turned out to be manual staff such as those working on school meals and on grass cutting; and just 57,000 of the 316,000 turned out to be people working in the central departments of education authorities.
That figure includes educational psychologists, people working on truancy and educational welfare and youth officers. One in seven who themselves are not administrators turn out to be the result of the mathematical genius that the Prime Minister obviously employs in the Cabinet Office.
We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is geographically and historically challenged; we know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is ethically challenged; and we know that the Prime Minister is mathematically challenged. They cannot add up, and they cannot tell the truth. [Interruption.] I will not give way, because I want to make one further point on the statistics used by the Secretary of State.
Last week, she claimed that the spending on children since 1979 had increased by 50 per cent. The real figure, because I have checked it, is a real-terms increase of 4 per cent., with a 5 per cent. cut in secondary education, before the £200-a-head cut in standard spending assessment this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A moment ago, the House heard the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) make comments from the Dispatch Box to the effect that senior members of the Government could not tell the truth. I distinctly heard him say that. I ask through you, Madam Speaker, whether that is a proper use of words. Does it not transgress the rules of the House?
Madam Speaker: I was engaged at the Chair and did not hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside. But I am sure—[Interruption.] Just a moment. I am sure that, if he did utter those words, he will come to the Dispatch Box, say so and withdraw them.
Mr. Blunkett: I take your ruling entirely, Madam Speaker. What I was clearly referring to was the statistical truth of the misinterpretation of the facts which were being dealt with by the Prime Minister, and the obvious
1036
statistical difficulty that the Secretary of State herself has with similar information. The Secretary of State talked about the budget for books and equipment having gone up by 55 per cent. It turns out to be less than half that figure. I am using statistics from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy—
Madam Speaker: Order. If I find tomorrow in Hansard that the hon. Member for Brightside has used language in this House which I find unacceptable, I shall return to the matter tomorrow. There seems to be some dispute now, but I must leave it until I see the written report.
Mr. Blunkett: Let me help with the Hansard report by making it clear that it is not always the case that those who do not present the truth deliberately lie. I am sure that the Prime Minister did not mean to tell a statistical inexactitude when he misled the House on 16 March.
What of the Secretary of States claim that the repair and maintenance budget for schools had risen by 15 per cent. per pupil? The actual sum, according to CIPFA, has gone down from £84 per pupil to £83 per pupil while the Conservatives have been in office. The position is entirely different.
The position is also entirely different over whether Britain spends more money than many of its European and OECD counterparts. The Secretary of State, on radio last week, claimed that France spent less of its national income on education than Britain. It is not true. France spent 5.4 per cent. of its gross domestic product and Britain spent 5.3 per cent. The Secretary of State claimed—
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blunkett: No, I shall not.
The Secretary of State claimed that the Netherlands spent less than the United Kingdom. In fact, it spent 6.8 per cent. of GDP, which, of course, for anyone who can calculate, is 1.5 per cent. more than the United Kingdom spent. Canada and Sweden and the United States all spent more than Britain as a proportion of their GDP on education.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who has been very patient.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in Kent, the SSA per secondary school pupil is £13 less than it was in 1992–93? What is more, rather than cutting spending, the council has increased education funding by £11 million. It will still find, therefore, that it has to cut £8 million from areas of spending which include discretionary awards, schools building maintenance, schools delegated funds and management savings. I do not think that that ties up with what the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) had to say.
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: Where is he now?] I am sure that one of the hon. Members who represents Kent is here to be enlightened and to take on board what my hon. Friend said.
The simple truth of the matter this afternoon is whether the British people believe a discredited and enfeebled Government, or whether they believe parents, governors and teachers in their own communities about what is happening around them. I presume that the Secretary of

1037
State was being honest when she sent her letter to Cabinet colleagues claiming what the result would be of the kind of settlement that the Government eventually inflicted on schools. I believe that she meant that there would be 7,000 to 10,000 redundancies among teachers and that class sizes would shoot up. I believe that she knew that in many schools, as at the Nicholas Chamberlain school in Bedworth, Warwickshire, there would be up to 10 redundancies for teaching staff.
I believe that the Secretary of State knows what the impact of the spending cuts will be, and I challenge her publicly to ask her Cabinet colleagues to think again about the settlement about which she warned, and which she said would mean cuts in the schools that we have been talking about. I challenge her to be honest and to say what she really thinks about the way in which her education policies are impinging on the British people. Otherwise, she will be a fairy tale turned into a nightmare—an Edward Scissorhands who ends up cutting, rather than being praised for having overturned the previous Secretary of States policies.
I presume that the right hon. Lady and her colleagues will have the temerity to acknowledge that what we say is true. It is true that spending in general should be aimed at improving standards and opportunities. There is no better way of giving children the necessary prior attainments and start in life than to ensure that all three and four-year-olds whose parents so wish have a place at a nursery school.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for improved nursery education, but does he agree that, throughout the United Kingdom, parents who have children with recognised educational needs know that not enough is being spent to help those children to achieve their real potential?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly what the debate is all about.
I gather that the Secretary of State has hidden talents and does a good imitation of Baroness Thatcher; she is a sort of Rory Bremner of the House of Commons. Perhaps she would care to mimic Baroness Thatcher by committing herself, as Baroness Thatcher did in 1972, to providing a nursery place, not a voucher, for every child whose parents want one.
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, under the Conservatives in the late 1970s, Kent county council undertook a major study of the impact of the voucher system in nursery education? Kent spent £9 million of public money on that experiment, and then abandoned it.
Mr. Dunn: You are joking.
Mr. Blunkett: I am not joking, and the people of Kent are not joking when they recall what the experiment cost them.
Yes, it cost £9 million to undertake a prolonged experiment in one part of Kent. The fact that Conservative Members do not know what happened is a good reason why they should start to listen and to learn, instead of talking about inflicting vouchers on the rest of Britain although they failed in one of the authorities that the Conservatives controlled.
The Secretary of State knows perfectly well what the dangers of vouchers are. She has said as much, as was reported by The Independent on 19 October last year. She
1038
knows that the voucher proposal would be a disaster, because she understands basic economics, even though her Cabinet colleagues may not.
Where supply does not exceed demand, a voucher system can assist and provide choice and diversity only for those who can top the voucher up with their own money. If the voucher system can provide enough cash for a place for every nursery-age child who needs one, we shall end up with transaction costs that increase bureaucracy without creating one extra place.
If we want to hear an independent view, we should ask the commercial business director of Kindercare, which is moving in from the United States. He told newspapers only a week ago that the firm was targeting Britain because of the high cost of nursery provision in this country compared with every other nation in the European Union and because of the sparsity of places here in comparison with our European counterparts. This is an area ripe for commercial development because the Government will not fulfil the pledge made by the Prime Minister at last years Conservative party conference that the Government would provide nursery places for four-year-olds.
Where is the money? Where is the promise? What is the target? What sort of places is the Secretary of State proposing to provide? What commitment is there from a Secretary of State who wrote to her own colleagues recently to suggest—really, to demand—that they should berate Labour and Liberal Democrat authorities for providing nursery education? Item 2 of her letter asks her hon. Friends to discover to what extent the local education authority is expanding non-statutory services—for example, services for under-fives—at the expense of statutory education services.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Blunkett: That has brought a crowd of Conservative Members to their feet.
Mr. Harry Greenway: The previous leader of the Labour party came to St Marys hall in Ealing and to Northolt on April 29 last year and said that, if the Labour party won Ealing borough council, it would provide a nursery place for every child of nursery age. That was a promise. The Labour party did win the election—undeservedly—but not a single extra nursery place has been provided.
Mr. Blunkett: There are two responses to that. First, we have not seen the beginning of the fulfilment of the pledge made by the Prime Minister six months ago, never mind the pledge of a local authority. Secondly, how dare the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) have the cheek to berate a Labour authority for not providing places after 11 months when the Secretary of State has asked him and his colleagues to berate local authorities for trying to provide such places?
The Secretary of States letter berates authorities for spending money on nursery education, and tells her hon. Friends to find out the facts. Presumably the hon. Gentleman found out the facts when he approached the authority at the request of the Secretary of State. He did so not to berate it for failing to provide places, but to find out whether places had been provided, in order that the Secretary of State could then criticise that authority.

1039
It is time that Conservative Members stopped blaming everyone else, and started blaming themselves. It is time for them to stop whingeing and criticising and to stand up and take their medicine, as they will do at the general election.
What about surplus places, which the Secretary of State talked about in item 3 of her letter? Most of her facts turn out to be incorrect. She berates Warwickshire for having 19 per cent. extra places, but a plan which would reduce surplus places in Warwickshire to only 7 per cent. has been given to the Secretary of State. Let the right hon. Lady make the decisions.
Targets on surplus places were set in June last year for local authorities across the country. Let us be clear who is responsible for the failure to allow authorities to remove surplus places. The Government allow schools to opt out in order for them to escape playing their part in the planning and configuration of services, and in contributing to the removal of surplus places.
The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): What about choice?
Mr. Blunkett: What choice do schools have when they are being told to sack teachers, to increase class sizes and to stop providing nursery education? What choice do parents have when the Government introduce selection so that only some children can attend a school which, previously, everyone preferred to enter? What choice will parents have when the Government bring forward the legislation that they have floated in the pre-emptive Queens Speech, suggesting that, once again, not all the nations children but only a few will have access to capital funding, which the Government intend to make available only to grant-maintained schools?
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Such nonsense.
Mr. Blunkett: I hope that it is nonsense, but I give this pledge: whatever the Government make available to the few, and whatever changes they bring about in defining the public sector borrowing requirement in terms of allowing spending on education and the public-private finance initiative, we shall make available to every child, every school and every parent. We are not interested in looking after only the few; we are not interested in merely taking care of 5, 6 or 7 per cent. of the nations children; we are interested in investing in standards and opportunity for every child in every school.
The Government have run out of steam and are in turmoil. They are at the end of their tether. They are a spent force, scrambling around for ideas—any ideas and any initiatives. Everyone knows that, under the Tories, they are worse off, because they pay more and get less. On 4 May, in the local elections, and at the time of the general election, whenever it comes, people will give their verdict on the Government: their spending; their cuts; and their attack on parents, teachers, governors and the future of our children. That is why, today, we challenge every Member of this House to vote for our motion and save the children of our nation.
4.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, to leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
1040
welcomes the substantial increase in the real level of education spending since 1979; notes that in a tough settlement overall local authorities will still be able to spend more next year than in 1994–95; looks to them to set sensible priorities; welcomes the substantial improvement in standards of achievement by pupils in recent years, as demonstrated by examination and test results and by school inspection reports; and applauds the Governments education policies which are further driving up education standards, and giving parents more choice and information for the benefit of their children..
The best thing that I can say about the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is that it was predictable. It was predictable in its concern for input rather than output; in its desire to pour in taxpayers money without ensuring proper value for money; in its pretence that the Labour party did not oppose each and every measure to raise standards and provide opportunities passed through the House in the past 16 years; in its dealing with myths and scare stories; and, as ever, in choosing to ignore the facts.
It may help the House if I begin by setting out the facts again. On funding, I admit that it is a tough year. I have maintained that from the start. We are talking not about a cut in funding, however, but about a rise. We have increased funding in education by more than 1 per cent., which is a good deal in such a tight year for public expenditure.
Ms Hilary Armstrong: The Secretary of State said that cuts are not involved, yet the figures for Durham show that its standard spending assessment this year has declined from £208 million—[HON. MEMBERS: What about school rolls?] School rolls have increased to an extent that would involve, if Durham were fully funded, another £1 million, but its SSA has gone down by £2 million. How does the Secretary of State square that fact with her statement that it has gone up?
Mrs. Shephard: This years settlement allows all authorities to manage if they choose their priorities carefully. That is the position. It cannot be denied because, as I shall demonstrate, many of them are doing just that.
We should put the latest increase in its proper context. It follows a 2.4 per cent. increase for 1994–95 and constant increases in education spending since 1979. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) questioned the figures that said that spending per pupil had increased in real terms by almost 50 per cent., spending on books and equipment by 55 per cent. and so on. I remind him that he is indeed using Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy statistics, but statistics that have not been used for 10 years.
In that context, I am confident in repeating that spending on repairs and maintenance has increased by 15 per cent. and that spending on support staff is up by 135 per cent.
Mr. William OBrien: Will the Secretary of State accept an invitation to come and tell the parents and governors of schools in my constituency that they have received an increase in accordance with her statement now, when in fact they are confronted by difficulties in meeting the budget to ensure that the education to which children are entitled, and which they need, will be provided this year?
Every parent in my constituency knows that the Government are responsible for cuts in education. If the Secretary of State is to be fair and just to people, she

1041
should admit that the Government need to put more money into education if we are to succeed in providing the quality of education to which people are entitled.
Mrs. Shephard: I would say to the hon. Gentleman, echoing what was said some time ago by the hon. Member for Brightside, that Her Majestys chief inspectors report was
about as unbiased as you can get.
That unbiased report said about resources:
In overall terms the provision of resources is satisfactory.
The hon. Member for Brightside has also sought to question how we stand internationally. Perhaps I should explain to him that he has muddled two sets of figures. We indeed spend a larger proportion of our public expenditure on education than do Japan, France, Germany or the Netherlands. Public expenditure on education in the United Kingdom accounts for a larger share of gross domestic product than it does in Germany or Japan. Those are facts. The hon. Gentleman muddled the two.
Mr. Blunkett: I should be grateful to the Secretary of State if we could place the matter on the record once and for all. The normal assessment of comparisons is with GDP; everyone knows that it is. Will she confirm this afternoon that France and the Netherlands—which she said on the radio last week spent less than we do—spend more as a proportion of GDP?
Mrs. Shephard: Public expenditure on education in the UK accounts for a larger share of GDP than it does in Germany or Japan. We spend a larger proportion of our public expenditure on education than do Japan or France or Germany or the Netherlands, as I said on the radio last week, and as I have said frequently since. Those are facts. Our record of massive and increasing funding provides the clearest possible proof that education is, has always been and will remain a Government priority.
Mr. Dunn: Earlier, the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred to local authority funding. Does the Secretary of State realise that 13 authorities have domestic rates arrears of £167 million, 14 local authorities have community charge arrears of £347 million and 18 local authorities have council tax arrears of £160 million? That is more than £700 million in local taxation that has not been collected by Labour authorities. Does she also realise that the worst local authorities in terms of domestic rates are Camden and Liverpool, the worst in the context of community charge are Liverpool and Haringey and the worst in the context of council tax are Birmingham and, would you believe, Hackney?
Mrs. Shephard: I would certainly believe all that. As a result of those uncollected arrears, the money wasted on surplus places, the money in balances and the money that has been spent on clerical and administrative staff which might have been spent on front-line services, the independent review body found the pay award affordable.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Shephard: I give way to my hon. Friend.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. To whom is the right hon. Lady referring?
Mrs. Shephard: I am referring to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Does she agree with or condemn the action taken by schools in Derbyshire which have closed on training days so that staff can come to London and lobby the House of Commons? Perhaps my right hon. Friend might investigate that action and see whether the Opposition agree with it. Will she further explain why the county council in Derbyshire holds back £720 per pupil while neighbouring Staffordshire and Nottinghamshire—which are both Labour authorities—hold back £570?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have now heard three long interventions—two from one side and one from the other. Interventions should be short. I call the Secretary of State.
Mrs. Shephard: I am very puzzled by the disclosure of my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire. Can it be that Derbyshire is so in funds that it can afford to pay for supply cover for teacher absences? Has it closed schools so that teachers can take part in demonstrations? That seems absolutely extraordinary. If the position is as my hon. Friend has described, it may be a matter for the district auditor; I do not know. It seems extraordinary and it certainly destroys at a stroke the myth that Derbyshire is hard up for funds.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Shephard: I will give way, but then I shall have to make progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the Secretary of State giving way to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)?
Mrs. Shephard: Yes.
Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Before she moves on from the issue of financial statistics, will she confirm that the average reduction in standard spending assessment per pupil in real terms in this years settlement is £50 per primary school pupil and £194 per secondary school pupil? Will she further confirm that her 50 per cent. increase analysis is founded upon inflation based on the retail prices index and not upon an educationally based rate of increase?
Mrs. Shephard: I have already made the position absolutely clear: all local authorities can increase their spending on education this year if they choose to identify their priorities. I have already said that the CIPFA statistics which the hon. Member for Brightside cited are 10 years out of date.
Mr. Denis MacShane: will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Shephard: I will give way later, but I shall now make some progress.
Local authority funding accounts for a quarter of all public spending. It therefore cannot be immune from tough decisions and economic reality. Public borrowing must come down if we are to keep arein on inflation and increase prosperity and jobs. As the Audit Commission has said on a number of occasions and in a number of reports, local education authorities can cut their own costs. They still spend millions on running their central bureaucracies and on maintaining surplus places in schools.

1043
As I said earlier, last year an Audit Commission report identified scope for saving half a billion pounds on the pay bill for local authorities administrative and clerical staff. The number of non-manual staff employed by councils increased by 90,000 between 1987 and 1993. The Audit Commission found that less than half that increase resulted from central Government initiatives. If local authorities exploit opportunities like that, they will have more money to spend on teachers in the classroom. It is a question of management and the ability to take hard decisions.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: My right hon. Friend has correctly drawn attention to the appalling record of Labour local authorities in favouring town halls rather than spending money in the classroom. Does she agree that it is entirely predictable that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) did not mention the record of his local authority during his speech? This year Sheffield has reduced the proportion of its total budget to be spent in the classroom, and no less than 15 per cent. of the total education budget will go on town hall costs. That is one of the highest levels in the country.
Mrs. Shephard: I could expect anything from an authority that a couple of years ago increased spending on leisure by 109 per cent. and reduced spending on education by 15 per cent. Those were the priorities of that authority and now it has the temerity to say that it has a problem.
Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the profligate Labour and Liberal councillors in Gloucestershire, whom I mentioned earlier, are top-slicing their education budget by 21 per cent. compared with 16 per cent. in next-door Wiltshire?
Mrs. Shephard: Many authorities do far better than Gloucestershire in making funds available directly to schools. That is just what Gloucestershire should be doing.
Mr. macshane: A large number of the letters I receive every day on the subject from Rotherham are from Conservative voters—from managers and, if I may say so, from her people. Her description of education getting better has absolutely no correspondence with reality in South Yorkshire. Rotherham is not an extravagant council. It has cut by 40 per cent. its delayered staff in the education department, every single school in Rotherham is having to cut teacher numbers this year, despite massive cuts across the board in council expenditure. When will the Secretary of State speak for the children of Rotherham and England and not for the Treasury and tax cuts of the future?
Mrs. Shephard: The best way for the hon. Gentleman to speak for the children and parents of Rotherham is for him to ask precisely the questions of that authority that are being asked by my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). That
1044
would be the way for the hon. Gentleman to protect the interests of his constituents. However, I have some interesting examples. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State continues, I should say that I am a little tired of running commentaries.
Mrs. Shephard: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I shall take Bedfordshire as my first example. The budget passed by the ruling combination of Liberal and Labour councillors represents a 3.5 per cent. cut in the schools budget, which could mean a reduction of 200 teacher posts. I wonder why the authority did not accept the alternative budget put forward by the Conservative group, which would have reduced the schools budget by only 2 per cent. and which would have been able to fund the whole of the teachers pay settlement. It would have taken £250,000 less out of county council balances and still included growth items to cover nursery education, special needs and increases in pupil numbers in mainstream and special schools.
Why would any responsible council not have accepted that budget? Perhaps Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors in Bedfordshire are more interested in making a political point than in serving their communities.
Why did Labour Lancashire slash its schools budgets by £19 million against the officers suggestion of £13 million, meanwhile reducing its administration costs by only £500,000? It rejected a Conservative proposal to set up a working group under an independent chairman to try to resolve some of the problems and restore some of the education cuts. I wonder whether those councillors are also more interested in political point scoring than serving the children of Lancashire.
In Cheshire, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat budget will fund the teachers pay award in full and it will increase spending in primary and secondary schools so that there will be almost £10 million extra for schools—7 per cent. above the education SSA. The budget proposals put before Cheshire council by the Labour group did not include funding the teachers pay award in full and provided only 1.2 per cent. above the SSA, leaving schools with a shortfall of £3 to £4 million. The vast majority of other authorities are coping—from Conservative Buckinghamshire to Labour Birmingham.
Local education authorities are in the best position to ensure that money goes where it is most needed in the light of local priorities. Many of them are doing that responsibly, focusing on front-line services.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mrs. Shephard: I should like to make a little progress.
I am grateful for the level-headedness of councillors, governors and teachers who are working out manageable responses to the settlement and maximising the use of resources to secure the best possible education for their pupils.
Mr. Blunkett: The Secretary of State mentioned Buckinghamshire and praised Conservatives in local government for doing such a good job, thus equating Buckinghamshire with an absence of problems. Why, then, did her hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) send one of his constituents a

1045
version of the standard letter issued by the Department for Education and Conservative central office attacking Labour authorities, which attacked Tory-controlled Buckinghamshire county council for doing all the things that the right hon. Lady has just attacked Labour county councils for doing?
Mrs. Shephard: To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he missed my passing reference—and congratulations—to Birmingham city council, which I believe is Labour-controlled. I also mentioned the Liberal Democrats in connection with Cheshire. As for my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler), his correspondence is his own affair. Indeed, he may be in the House to speak for himself.
Mr. David Lidington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Buckinghamshire county council over-provided for the teachers pay award and was thus able to fund it in full? Moreover, because of its prudent financial management over many years, the council has been able to make a substantial contribution from its balance to protect its education budget.
Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the position of Buckinghamshire.
Although tough, this years settlement is manageable, as many authorities are proving. The Government are committed to implementing review body recommendations in full unless there are clear and compelling reasons to the contrary. We think that there are no such reasons this year, and I am announcing this afternoon our conclusion that it would be right to implement the teachers pay recommendation in full: teachers deserve no less.
I began by describing the speech of the hon. Member for Brightside as predictable. It was; but he was less predictable when he chose to extol standards and opportunity. In fact, it was difficult to believe what we were hearing from a party that had opposed those principles at every turn for the past 16 years.
I am delighted to talk about standards and opportunity, because Conservative Members know a good deal about them. Let us start with the action that we have taken—as opposed to mere chatter—in regard to standards and opportunity in education. When we came to office in 1979, we were faced with an education system that was based on inputs and took no account of outputs. This afternoon, the hon. Member for Brightside has demonstrated yet again that Labour is happy for taxpayers money to be spent and is not interested in what it buys.
In 1979, there was no measure for what children should learn in schools; but a basic curriculum is central to the raising of standards. We therefore established such a curriculum, which laid proper emphasis on the basics of literacy and numeracy and provided a broad and balanced programme for all pupils aged between five and 16. To ensure that all that is working, we have introduced a framework of tests and assessment.
The Office of Standards in Education—Ofsted—reports that the national curriculum, which, sadly, was mindlessly opposed by Opposition Members, is already improving the teaching of mathematics, and that primary science can be counted a major success. Those improvements will continue. We can also applaud the steady improvement in GCSE results in recent years.
Mr. George Walden: My right hon. Friend speaks of educational opportunities. Can she explain
1046
why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday appeared to close the door on the new educational opportunity offered by the entry of Manchester grammar school into the state sector? I hope that she will not mention the assisted places scheme; there is all the difference in the world between doling out the odd scholarship in a lordly fashion and opening the best schools in the country to the best and brightest brains.
Mrs. Shephard: The proposals for Manchester grammar school are extremely interesting and I know that my hon. Friend has does an enormous amount of work on the interface between the maintained and independent sectors. My hon. Friend has discovered and expressed many interesting viewpoints. I take this opportunity publicly to invite him to tea, to talk to me about them. [Interruption.] A number of ribald suggestions are coming from the Opposition Benches. I can only say that hon. Members are becoming over-excited.
We applaud the steady improvement in GCSE results in recent years. In 1989, just under 33 per cent. of 15-year olds gained five or more GCSEs at grade C or above. By 1994, the proportion had increased to more than 43 per cent. Those results and the record of all schools in achieving them are clear for all to see in our national performance tables, which we understand Labour Members now support. That is a good thing, because the tables also show performance in another vital area—truancy.
I was delighted that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) condemned truancy the other day, yet it is curious that he and his party voted against all our measures to combat and to record truancy. They talk now about standards with all the zeal of the recent convert, yet for 16 years all our moves to raise standards were met with unremitting opposition from Labour.
Mr. George Stevenson: The Secretary of State talks about standards and opportunities. Nearly every school in my constituency faces cuts in teaching staff. I have met head teachers, and they blame not the authority but the Secretary of State for failing to fund the teachers pay increase. How will those cuts improve standards and opportunities in my constituency?
Mrs. Shephard: I have given examples of authorities which are managing perfectly well with this years settlement, even though it is tough. I advise the hon. Gentleman to take lessons from the examples that I gave.
Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) suggested that the SSA for Durham for the coming year will be less than for the current year. I checked the figures with the Library. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that Durhams SSA for the coming year will be in excess of that for the current year? Despite the fact that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West is a member of the shadow Treasury team, she got her figures wrong. She failed to take into account the children in Durham who are educated outside her county.
Mrs. Shephard: That is a matter for rejoicing for the hon. Lady, and I can see how delighted she is.
Independent inspection is crucial to raising standards. The Opposition seem to prefer a system in which primary schools could expect such an inspection once every 200 years and secondary schools once every 50 years, but we would not accept that. Our new inspection system provides

1047
schools with a systematic and regular assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. With that diagnosis, schools can set clear targets for improvement.
Overall, inspection is indicating good standards across the system, but it is also confirming that a minority of schools have serious weaknesses or are failing. Where standards are unacceptably low, we will intervene. Our powers to do so have galvanised LEAs into action to improve their weakest schools. Most schools are making good progress while others are moving towards closure. Either way, pupils can look forward to better education. The policy is working.
The key to higher standards is good teaching, which is why we established the Teacher Training Agency. On Monday, I attended the launch of its first corporate plan—an impressive catalogue of activities, all designed to raise standards. The purpose of the agency is to improve the quality of teaching and of teacher education and training, in order to improve pupils achievement and the quality of their learning.
Who could oppose a body with such a purpose? Who could oppose bringing together activities previously scattered among various agencies and Departments?
Mr. Tony Benn rose—
Mrs. Shephard: Who could oppose setting up one body committed and able to concentrate on the fight for higher teaching standards? I think that someone is about to suggest himself.
Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Lady aware that thousands of people have come down from Derbyshire today, and that tens of thousands have signed a petition, because all the words that she has used about higher standards stick in their gullets? Teachers, especially experienced teachers, are to be sacked; class sizes are to rise; school buildings are in disrepair. One of the greatest causes of their resentment is the fact that she does not reply to letters written to her by governors, parents and teachers. The information that she has given the House today is wholly misleading in respect of many local education authorities.
Mrs. Shephard: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman what I told my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) earlier. If the county council is in such financial straits, I do not understand how it has managed to provide supply cover to enable so many teachers to attend todays demonstration. That seems an extraordinary way of identifying priorities. If it is true that schools have been closed, it becomes even more extraordinary.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mrs. Shephard: I wish to make progress. I have already taken—
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the rights of people in this country is to be
1048
able to come and lobby their Members of Parliament and bring them petitions, as you will agree. By and large schools have difficulties—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Sit down. That is clearly not a point of order. The Minister did not give way to allow the hon. Gentlemans hoped-for intervention, so he must resume his seat.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not have a point of order, and he must resume his seat.
Mrs. Shephard: People do indeed have the right to petition Parliament; whether they have the right to do so at public expense is another matter.
Mr. Den Dover: We are trying to improve standards in a difficult year for budget settlements. As we are the party of choice, does my right hon. Friend agree that the only realistic option is to open up the grant-maintained sector? Is it not appalling that only one school in Chorley has gone for GM status? Is not GM status the only way to ensure extra expenditure on schools—and extra capital expenditure on them?s
Mrs. Shephard: Yes. It is a pity that the Opposition motion, which concerns opportunity, does not mention choice or diversity. Perhaps that is not surprising, for the Labour party has opposed choice and diversity at every turn: grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, and even the Education Act 1980, which introduced parental choice in the maintained sector. Nothing has done more to establish choice and diversity than GM schools.
When we came to power, LEAs had a monopoly of state schooling and detailed control of schools. We have given more autonomy to all schools, and we have given parents a central role in determining how much autonomy schools should have.
Parents have the right to decide whether their childs school should become self-governing. Well over 1,000 schools have made the choice to go GM, and the number continues to grow. I hope that the numbers are growing in my right hon. Friends constituency.
Dame Angela Rumbold: It seems to me that GM schools offer not only choice but the chance for governing bodies, without commitment, to do the arithmetic and work out the difference that it might make to them if they opted out of LEA control and became grant-maintained. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be interesting for schools to undertake those sums?
Mrs. Shephard: I do. Many schools are doing exactly that at the moment. They will also take into account the fact that, on average, GM schools perform better than their LEA counterparts. The-primary schools have better test scores at key stage one. The comprehensive schools have better GCSE results and less truancy. Not surprisingly, therefore, GM schools are popular with parents—including a number of parents who sit on the Opposition Benches.

1049
What a pity it is that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield—an apparent convert to GM—has so little influence over his own Labour town halls. The behaviour of many of them towards schools seeking to become GM, and to GM schools themselves, has been disgraceful.
Let us take one or two examples from across the country, ranging from deliberate attempts to terrorise to acts of petty spite. Birmingham city council waged a campaign of discrimination against the pupils and staff of Baverstock grant-maintained school. Pupils were banned from libraries during school hours and were not allowed to borrow books for school projects. The school was not allowed to use council football pitches, and pupils were unable to use the local swimming pool.
In April 1994, the Lib-Lab pact which controls Avon county council produced a guidance document clearly designed to intimidate schools considering the GM option, as the following sentences demonstrate:
A Grant-Maintained ballot unleashes deep divisions within parent groups and within communities … the experience of a ballot is a very unpleasant one for the Governing body, the staff and some of the parents.
But what price Labour town halls, when the right hon. Member for Sedgefield seems unable to convert his own education spokesman? The hon. Member for Brightside has stated his opposition to GM schools up and down the land and also quite clearly in the House. Speaking to GM heads last week he made soothing noises, talking about
flexible partnerships for GMs with their local community,
and saying:
coherence in the configuration of services is also a key process in which all schools should participate.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to explain to the more than 1 million GM parents, not to mention their governors, heads, teachers and children, exactly what those phrases mean. Would he like to tell the House? Can he, as I asked him in a letter last week, give GM pupils, parents and teachers an assurance that he has no intention of changing or interfering with the freedoms, choice and diversity for which these parents have voted?
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us are acutely aware of the movements of the Clerk of the House. I noticed just now that he turned to you to suggest that the right hon. Lady might be out of order. Will you consider what he said? We believe that she is.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I never comment on any advice that I may receive from Clerks. In any case, if the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, he will find it couched in such wide terms that what the Secretary of State is saying is in order.
Mrs. Shephard: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand why this may be rather a sensitive subject for the Opposition.
I spoke of a letter that I wrote to the hon. Member for Brightside last week. I hope that he will give the House an answer to it. Many of his colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, are awaiting it eagerly, because the education of their own children is at stake.
Mr. Blunkett: The answer on grant-maintained schools is that they are as subject to cuts and redundancies as every other type of school—as spelled out in the right
1050
hon. Ladys letter to her Cabinet colleagues. We give this pledge: every child and every school will be treated equitably and fairly and will be given the same investment to lift standards and opportunities for 100 per cent. of our children, not just 7 per cent. of them.
Mrs. Shephard: Dearie me, those are very soothing words, and I do not think that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield will like that too much. Of course Labour Members do not like grant-maintained schools, because those schools manage their own affairs and control their total budgets. They escape from the iron grip of Labour-controlled town halls.
Mr. Marland: Did my right hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in the same way as I did? He gave an assurance that all schools would be treated in exactly the same way. Does that mean that they will all be dealt with directly by a Labour Government and that they will completely sideline all the local authorities, because that is how I interpret it—no local democracy, no local influence, the whole thing controlled by the hon. Gentleman?
Mrs. Shephard: No doubt the hon. Member for Brightside will make his case with the right hon. Member for Sedgefield some time this evening. Whatever he meant, he meant the end of grant-maintained schools, that is for sure.
Ms Armstrong: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mrs. Shephard: No. I am not giving way any more.
The Government have an outstanding record of achievement in education. The reforms have established a new framework for education that raises standards and extends opportunity, choice, diversity and achievement. What has the Oppositions contribution been to all that? It has been opposition all the way. No one can deny it; it is clearly chronicled in their voting record.
They have voted against every measure to raise standards and increase opportunity; against every measure to increase choice in the maintained sector; against the assisted places scheme; against the introduction of more parent-governors; against the national curriculum and assessment tests; against GM schools and city technology colleges; against the establishment of Ofsted and the new inspection regime; against the establishment of a higher education funding council; and against the establishment of the Teacher Training Agency.
With that record, how dare the Opposition lecture us about standards and opportunity? How dare they pose as the guardians of opportunity—they who would deny to others the very choices that they seize eagerly for their own children?
It is the Conservative Government who have ensured that we have higher standards and greater opportunities throughout our educational system than ever before. The Government have given the young people of Britain wider choice and greater opportunity and thrown open the doors to a better education and training that is more sound. That is a record of which we are proud, and it is a record that we intend to maintain and enhance.
5.11 pm
Mr. Mike Hall: The debate takes place against a backdrop of growing concern about the funding of our education system, particularly in the state sector.
The Government have failed to deliver high-quality education in all our schools, and that is one of the devastating failures of the past 16 years of Tory party misrule.
The Governments over-prescription of the national curriculum, their failure to deliver on teachers concerns over the way in which they conduct the standard attainment test and their interference in the GCSE examination have impeded, not promoted, the process of improving the standards that are achieved by our pupils in state schools. The Governments blind promotion of grant-maintained schools owes much more to political ideology of selection than it does to choice.
In its leader of 27 April 1992, The Times said:
To pretend that the selective opted out structure emerging as Government policy has anything to do with parental choice is a deception.
Those are powerful words. What they say has been underpinned by a concerted attack on the professionalism of teachers, as evidenced in the recent unhelpful comments by the Secretary of State for Education, who commented on what goes on in classrooms throughout the country.
The debate also takes place against a backdrop of remorseless and systematic education spending cuts. What brings todays debate sharply into focus is the united protest of parents, teachers and governors across the country. Thousands upon thousands of ordinary people, united in their commitment to fight for the best possible education for their children, have been spontaneously thrust into action by the Governments mindless refusal to fund in full this years modest teachers pay award. That act in itself says a great deal about how hopelessly out of touch the Government have become.
The Government stand idly by while bosses in the privatised utilities award themselves massive pay raises, paid for out of the pockets of water, gas and electricity users, yet when it comes to the teachers pay award, the Government agree that the increase is justified but meanly refuse to pay for it. Those actions have left thousands of governors with the atrocious task of sacking teachers and/or increasing class sizes. The Government do not care, because they believe that increasing class sizes does not in itself affect standards. What utter nonsense.
Faced with that choice—requiring almost a judgment of Solomon—school governors have protested loud and clear about the act of educational vandalism perpetrated by the Government. School governors are the same governors whom the Government claim to have liberated, empowered and given a voice to. Is it not ironic that, when those governors speak out in one voice to condemn the Governments actions over the refusal to fund in full the teachers pay award, the so-called self-styled liberators—the Government—ignore their views? So much for the Governments rhetoric about giving parents and governors more say in education.
The Government are only the fickle friend of parent power. In response to the protest, we have seen the ignominious retreat of the Secretary of State for Education. At first she recognised that up to 10,000
1052
teachers would be made redundant and that class sizes would shoot up as a result of the Governments failure to fund in full the teachers pay award. She now says, however, that the pay award can be funded out of unpaid poll tax and the removal of surplus places. In other words, she is suggesting that local education authorities can fund the pay award with money that they do not have. She is engaged in fantasy politics, and she knows it.
Shire county LEAs are not responsible for collecting poll tax or council tax arrears, yet the Secretary of State suggests that teachers pay should be partly funded out of the collection of those arrears. She cannot be serious in her suggestion that teachers monthly salary pay cheques should become dependent on whether a district council has recovered sufficient poll tax arrears to meet the salary bill.
Likewise, on the issue of surplus places, the savings suggested by the Secretary of State are illusory, in that every time an LEA attempts to close a school because of over-capacity, that school applies to become grant-maintained and thus frustrates the efforts of the LEA to rationalise education places. If any proof is needed of that, all one has to do is look at Bankfield high school, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes). It was faced with closure. It applied to opt out and was granted grant-maintained status by the Secretary of State.
In response to the avalanche of criticism by school governors, the Prime Minister, at Question Time last Tuesday, said:
Of course we recognised from the outset that this years settlement is tough in education.
He should have said that the Tory partys approach is tough on education. He went on to say:
If any local authority is thinking of cutting the number of teachers in the classroom, I would ask it what savings it had made in non-teaching aspects of education.—[Official Report, 21 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 140.]
That patronising nonsense beggars belief after 16 years of education cuts perpetrated by the Tories.
My own LEA—it was mentioned by the Secretary of State—Cheshire county council, which is Tory-Liberal Democrat controlled, is at the bottom of the league in spending per pupil. Cheshire county council spends only £1,321 per nursery and primary school place. The average is £1,580. Suffolk, which is at the top of the league, spends £1,944. On secondary school places, the position is similar. Cheshire spends only £2,072, when the average is £2,260. Cleveland, at the top of the league, spends £2,515.
At the time of the 1995–96 revenue support grant settlement, Michael Pitt, chief executive of Cheshire county council, wrote to me to say that his authoritys administration costs are very low, that class sizes are higher and that its pupil-teacher ratios are far worse than the average. Yet the Secretary of State holds that up as an example of a good education authority. Of course, Michael Pitt is right. In 1994, Cheshire had 19.1 pupils per teacher and was the fourth worst in England. The 1995 figure shows that the ratio has worsened. In Warrington, there are 19.8 pupils per teacher, and in Halton Vale Royal, there are 19.4 pupils per teacher. The Secretary of State quoted that as a good example of providing education. Of course, that was before the decision on the revenue support grant and the Governments refusal to fund fully the teachers pay award.

1053
Cheshire county councils SSA for 1995–96 has been cut by 3.3 per cent. in real terms, and its revenue support grant has been cut by 0.8 per cent. in real terms. That, together with the ES million cost of fully funding the teachers award, has placed severe pressures on the education budget.
To balance its books, Cheshire county council has cut £1.6 million from its client services. That means cutting the number of free school meals and increasing the cost of school meals that are paid for. It has cut £90,000 from its education support services, £290,000 from continuing education and youth and community provision and £113,000 from inspection. The Secretary of State says that inspection is one of the ways to improve standards in our schools, but an authority that she congratulates has cut £113,000 from its inspection budget.
Worst of all, Cheshire county council made a cut of £3 million from student awards in this financial year, and it plans to cut them by £3 million in the next financial year. That means that no discretionary grants or support will be given to adults who wish to return to education. That cut alone hits standards and colleges alike. Warrington collegiate institute is set to lose £300,000 as a result, and adults who return to education will have to fund their own courses or forgo the option of enhancing their qualifications. The loss of discretionary awards hits working-class students hardest, and they are the very people who need to return to education.
Unfortunately, Cheshire county council did not stop there. It cut £575,000 from the primary schools budget, £1.5 million from the secondary schools budget and £440,000 from special education needs. However, the authority was still left with the problem of finding £8 million to fund fully the pay award for its teachers. If the Government had fully funded that award, Cheshire county council could have used the money to bring it from the bottom of the educational ladder on spending per pupil. It could have spent more on improving its poor pupil-teacher ratio in Halton, Warrington and elsewhere in its area.
The money could have been spent on establishing a junior school unit for hearing-impaired pupils at the Brow school in Runcorn. Much-needed extra resources could have been given to the learning support service in Warrington or to a multi-sensory impairment unit similar to the excellent facilities that are provided at the Russett school in Weaverham. It could have provided a much-needed unit in primary schools for partially sighted pupils.
It is clear that the Government have misjudged the mood of the nation on this issue and have ignored the harmful effects of these cuts on our education. They need to rethink their strategy—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are on a 10-minute limit.
5.22 pm
Sir Rhodes Boyson: The first matter that I should like to place on the record is that, since 1979, there has been a huge increase in Government expenditure on education. There are 50 per cent. more sixth formers than when we came to power, and the number of pupils moving to higher education is now one in three compared with one in eight. That is a 150 per cent. increase. All that
1054
has had to be funded, so there is no doubt that we have put vast sums into education. The Secretary of State mentioned that.
A comparison with other countries of the percentage that Britain spends on education will often show to our advantage. On the figures that I have seen, the comparisons with Germany, France and Japan are credible. However, no matter how much more money we have put in and how many more students there are at every level, what matters is the quality of teachers, the commitment of parents and the syllabus. On those three issues over the past 16 years, the Government have done a great deal in every way.
We installed a basic curriculum when we came to power in 1979 and I was privileged to be an Education Minister for four years. A headlong comprehensive reorganisation was jittering to a stop and the far left had encouraged do-it-yourself education in schools instead of real teaching, which means seating people at desks and teaching them with real teachers instead of joyriders.
As I have said, we introduced the basic curriculum. For a time it was too complicated, and I accept that for a while it was oppressive. But that was a trial period, and now there is a good curriculum in primary and secondary schools and testing at the ages of seven, 11 and 14. That is as it should be.
I make no apology for the introduction of league tables. There is a premium football league and there should also be a premium educational league because education is a necessity. In 1979, there was no parental choice and local authorities could increase or decrease the size of schools just as they wanted.
Mr. Dunn: They could do that at will.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I agree with my hon. Friend. Parents were not given the privilege of knowing the curriculum and there was no parental choice. We changed all that. In the past 16 years, the Government have done very well for education. All the changes that we have made to improve education have been opposed by the Labour party.
Mr. Dunn: And by the Liberals.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I had forgotten that the Liberals still exist. They also opposed the changes. The Opposition opposed every Second Reading—when I checked yesterday I found that only one Third Reading was unopposed. We introduced the curriculum and parental choice, but they preferred parents to be blindfolded and having to go where they were sent, like a conscript army.
Apparently, the Labour party now agrees with us on most matters, which is rather a compliment. However, it does not agree that reverse discrimination in education—the assisted places scheme—has worked. Some 34,000 children from some of the poorest homes in the country are in our best schools. The party that talks about reverse discrimination turned against the only good reverse discrimination ever carried out in education.
I am concerned about three issues, the first of which is the destruction of playing fields and the consequent lack of sporting facilities. Today, I asked for a list of school and other playing fields that have been lost in my constituency over the 21 years that I have been there. The Government should direct that no playing field should be

1055
taken out of action from now on unless there is Government approval. There is no point in talking about sport if there are no facilities for it.
Secondly, I am concerned to maintain the standards of A-level and degree courses. No deterioration should arise from the fact that more people are sitting for those examinations, as that would put at risk the severity of the examinations. Thirdly, I am concerned to see the return of morning school assemblies because they bring the people in a school together. Such an assembly has a moral and a disciplinary place in a school and if the headmaster cannot keep 1,200 pupils in order at assembly, he cannot expect his staff to keep them in order in the classrooms. I sometimes suspect that assemblies are not held because of the fear of bad behaviour.
I should like to deal with another matter on which I think I might have the support of the whole House. That would be a surprise and a privilege, and I shall give my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who was also a teacher, a drink if I manage to do it. I do not think that we realise that the power in education has changed. In the beginning, the political parties organised it nationally and locally and there were agreements about setting up governing bodies. That has gone, and one of the problems facing the Government is that the power has passed to parents and teachers.
Mr. Dunn: What is wrong with that?
Sir Rhodes Boyson: There is nothing wrong with that. My hon. Friend is cross-examining me. I will have a word with him, too. He will not get a drink afterwards. The battles will now be fought with parents and teachers, not with the local authorities of old.
Let me end my speech as I know that a time limit has been imposed.
Mr. Marland: My right hon. Friend has three minutes.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I have three minutes, so I can move a little more slowly, even start again or ask which parts of my speech I should expand on.
Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend give way so that I can help him along?
Sir Rhodes Boyson: No, I shall not give way. My hon. Friend and I are speaking in a debate on Friday. He is giving an introduction for me. I have changed my mind. I shall give way to him.
Mr. Carlisle: I promise to say nice things about my right hon. Friend on Friday. Does he agree that corporal punishment is another old-fashioned principle to which we should return?
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I would vote for that tomorrow. Capital and corporal punishment is coming back around the world, including in America. Eventually, it will come back here. We shall all have to have a drink together on the day that that happens.
In 1987, a MORI poll was conducted on whether parents were satisfied with their childrens education. It showed that 74 per cent. of parents were satisfied. The 1994 MORI poll showed that 83 per cent. were satisfied. The Government have poured money into education because of the extension in the number of people staying
1056
on longer. Secondly, we have tightened education up through the national curriculum, parental choice and all those changes, against the wishes of the Labour party, which is so unqualified to go into government. Thirdly, we have to watch out that that vast expansion does not mean a lowering of standards. Apart from that, I have full confidence in the Government on education.
5.31 pm
Mr. Don Foster: It is always difficult to follow the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). His ideas are often interesting and provocative but, sadly, wrong.
As the House will know, I act as an adviser to two teacher unions. I suspect that they will be slightly surprised to hear my opening remarks. I should like to pay a compliment to the Secretary of State for Education, who, sadly, is not in her place. The House will acknowledge that rejection, especially public rejection, is difficult to bear. All hon. Members know that, behind the scenes, the Secretary of State has been working hard to try to obtain additional money for the education service.
We know that, behind the scenes, the right hon. Lady has made it clear that she knows that the recent education settlement will damage the education service, that a number of teachers will have to be sacked, and that she believes class sizes will rise. I congratulate her on the fact that she managed to give a speech in which none of that, and none of the public humiliation that she suffered as a result of her Cabinet colleagues rejection of her pleas, showed through.
Mr. Alan Duncan: In my county of Leicestershire, the Conservatives put forward a budget that would have given an extra £1 million to education. The Liberal Democrat leader on Leicestershire county council said that, if he had an extra £1 million, he would not spend it on schools. Does the hon. Gentleman stand by that statement?
Mr. Foster: Many decisions have been made at local level by local authorities that are placed in considerable difficulty because of the restraints on finance imposed in recent settlements under the Government.
Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
Mr. Foster: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Without knowing the details of the Leicestershire case, it would be inappropriate for me to comment, but it is interesting that, both in the Chamber and on the radio in the past 24 hours, we have heard a number of examples of what Liberal Democrat and Labour authorities have done. One relates to Bedfordshire county council. The Secretary of State suggested on the radio this morning, and repeated at the Dispatch Box today, that the Liberal Democrat and Labour administration in Bedfordshire had produced a budget that was less for education than the Conservatives had.
This morning, however, the Secretary of State received a letter from that council, pointing out that the information that she gave on the radio and subsequently did not tie in with the budget figures in Bedfordshire, where the Liberal Democrat-Labour administration put forward a budget amounting to nearly £250 million more than that of the

1057
Conservatives. It is not the other way around. I need to know the details of the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
Sir David Madel: The hon. Gentleman should consider Bedfordshires budget more closely. The Labour-Liberal budget has resulted in a 3.5 per cent. cut in school budgets. The Conservative budget, in addition to funding teachers pay, resulted in a 2 per cent. cut. That is a difference of 1.5 per cent. Each 1 per cent. amounts to £35,000 in one upper school. Therefore, an extra £52,500 has been cut from the budget of one upper school in Bedfordshire. Those are the correct figures
Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is making the point that Conservative Members are making the most incredible use of some statistics.
I have the budget figures that were contained in the budget proposals of the two political groups. Today at the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State told us clearly that more money was being made available for the education service. Of course, everyone knows that that amount of money is an increase on the previous year, but she refused to acknowledge that, in real terms, the amount of money has decreased by £50 per primary pupil and by nearly £200 per secondary pupil.
People outside need to know the statistics that make it clear what is happening on the ground. Parents, teachers and governors know that the education service in their region is being cut and that, as a result, the quality of education being provided to their children is being harmed.
Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: I shall not give way. Although I do not have to comply with the 10-minute rule, Madam Speaker is keen for me to stay as close to it as I can. Perhaps I shall give way when I have made a little progress.
It is interesting that the Cabinet is clearly split on education. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury wants nursery vouchers, yet the Secretary of State opposes them. Earlier today at the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State said that the ideas of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) on Manchester grammar school were refreshing, and she invited him to tea to discuss them. Only yesterday, however, the Prime Minister rejected those ideas in his answers at Prime Ministers Question Time.
It is reported that the President of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Secretary, who are running scared of the backlash caused by education cuts, want more money to be spent on schools rather than on tax cuts, yet, needless to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer opposes that.
The Prime Minister, meanwhile, makes claims about the number of local education authority administrators. Frankly, his claims would not pass key stage 1 in mathematics. If he considers his own local education authority, he will find that, out of the nearly 8,000 teachers and support staff, such as caretakers, cleaners and education welfare officers, less than one in 26 are involved in LEA administration—hardly the two administrators per three teachers that he claimed.
1058
The Prime Minister knows, and the Cabinet knows only too well, that LEAs have already been forced to cut into the bone as a result of education cuts. To misquote Winston Churchill, the Government have got themselves into a shambles wrapped in confusion inside chaos.
Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
Mr. Foster: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have had extremely extensive correspondence on the issues that no doubt he wants to raise. He can refer to the letters that I have written to him in relation to the point that I am sure he wants to raise.
As a result of all that chaos, our teachers, our governors and, perhaps most important, our pupils suffer. They suffer from having larger classes—1 million primary pupils are in classes of more than 30, and 100,000 in classes of more than 36. They suffer because the school buildings are falling down around their ears. A survey last week revealed that more than a quarter of schools have been forced to close dilapidated buildings, and nearly 20 per cent. of schools have had pupils or staff suffering from illness or injury linked to poor conditions.
It is hardly surprising that truanting has increased. Instead of fining parents for not sending their children to school, perhaps we should fine Ministers for not making the money available to ensure that schools are places where children want to go.
The failure to fund the education service means that there is now a £4.3 billion backlog of repairs and maintenance to school buildings.
Mr. John Carlisle: It is, of course, easy to spend someone elses money, which is the hon. Gentlemans partys policy. He criticised the Conservative authoritys budget in Bedfordshire, but I remind him that, under the Liberal-Labour budget now accepted by the council, it is estimated that between 250 and 300 redundancies will have to be made in the education service. Under the Conservative budget, some 140 redundancies would have to be made, because we are making greater savings elsewhere. In other words, his party is concerned not with jobs but with pouring more money into what seems in Bedfordshire to be a bottomless pit.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has a very peculiar view of the nature of the education service. One of the problems is that many Conservative Members seem to believe—just like the Prime Minister when he talked about administrators—that one can provide an education service without any of the back-up and support that teachers desperately need in the classroom. That is what worries many people. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would reflect on the point of having Ofsted inspectors identify problems in schools—problems that teachers often already know about—but for there then to be no back-up and support to help the schools to put matters right.
The situation is already bad enough, but let us reflect on what the Government are now doing. The Secretary of State did not deny that, under the financial support settlement, the Government have cut £50 in real terms from spending on every primary school pupil and nearly £200 from spending on every secondary school pupil. In effect, that is a cut of £10,000 for a 200-pupil primary school, or a cut of £126,000 for a 650-pupil secondary school. The total is a £700 million cut. How can local education authorities possibly make up such a shortfall?

1059
Many people outside have rumbled the Government. They know that the problems cannot be blamed on local education authorities, but that the blame must be put fairly and squarely on central Government cuts, where it belongs. Perhaps the most cynical reaction since Herod asked the wise men to take him to greet the baby was to support an increase for teachers but not to fund it.
The situation was beautifully summed up in a letter that I read recently in an education magazine. The letter read:
Dear Editor, My son was pleased when I told him I was putting his pocket money up by five pounds. He was a bit bemused when I told him I was not funding the increase. When he asked me where the money was coming from, I told him that was his problem.
That is the problem faced by schools across the country.
Mr. Duncan: Where is the money to come from?
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps put that question to the Secretary of State, because she too has been asking for more money for the education service, but her request has been rejected. Perhaps she now knows how people in the education service feel. People in the service have rumbled the Government. They know that the Government are trying to save money for pre-election tax cut bribes. The Government should not be allowed to succeed.
I hope that the Secretary of State will continue to press the Cabinet for more money for the education service, and that she will not give up in the attempt. If she does not succeed, the only honourable thing for someone in her position is to resign her post. I am sorry that she is not here to hear me say this. She has, at least privately, indicated her support for the education service. The time has now come, however, for her to put her job on the line to secure a decent future for our schools, and I hope that she will do so this evening by supporting the Labour motion.
5.44 pm
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That was a fascinating tirade by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I happen to have had the privilege of knowing the Secretary of State for Education for a very long time. She was, in fact, the inspector at the village school to which my children went—six of them. She was a very good inspector, just as she had been a very good teacher.
My right hon. Friend was far from humiliated in the recent Budget discussions. Although the national Budget was frozen overall, two Secretaries of State won increases for their Departments budgets—the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Education. I reckon that the ladies did rather well.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Bath do not entirely surprise me. He had the great privilege of attending Lancaster Royal grammar school—he was the only Liberal it ever turned out. His school report boded ill for the Liberal party. It read as follows:
Muddle-headed and impulsive. May grow out of it. Daft and illogical. Does less than justice to work by indulging in irreverence and orgies of bad spelling.
We cannot judge the quality of his spelling, but we can judge the quality of his logic.
1060
Reference has already been made to the fact that the motion ranges very widely. I have the great privilege of having several superb schools in my constituency, and many of the pupils who have attended them—including the hon. Member for Bath—went on to university. As the House may be somewhat tired of hearing by now, I also have an absolutely superb university in my constituency. In todays hierarchy, it is third only to Oxford, which is a superb university, and to Cambridge, which is not too bad.
Lancaster university has led the field in so many subjects and is now on an international plane. It set the scene for the whole university world when, last week, it raised no less than £35 million on the stock exchange on the strength of its reputation. Is that not an enormous tribute to the work it has done?
I am very interested in the observations that have been made about staffing, and I am very keen to learn about staffing at county hall. I was astounded to find that, although further education has been removed from the orbit of the county councils, and although much of the county councils work has been removed because of local management of schools, staffing gains have nevertheless been made in administration. In Preston in 1990–91, there were 503 full-time equivalents. The figure then shot up to 543, despite the fact that further education had been removed from county council control, and local management of schools had transferred much work from county to schools. Last year, the figure went up to 548.
The Secretary of State referred to a cut of £500,000 in Lancashires administration. I laughed, because the £500,000 cut was a tightening of the rules because of the excessive amount of sick pay taken by county hall staff, which was mentioned by the Audit Commission.
I was so extremely incensed by the way in which the county had cut the money for our schools that I decided to go into the question of grant-maintained status. GM status was not only a Conservative idea you know, ladies and gentlemen—[Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I mean hon. Members, although some hon. Members are ladies and gentlemen.
There was a fascinating item in the Evening Standard a week last Tuesday which quoted Eric Hammond, a chairman of a school which is trying to become grant-maintained. I could not have agreed with him more. I do not recall having agreed with him before, but I did on that occasion. He said:
It is not in our interests to be tied to an expensive bureaucracy.
By golly, it is not in our interests either.
There is also a very good school in Bradford which has just become grant-maintained. The headmaster of that school is a former Labour councillor. He told a friend of mine who was there only last Friday, so it was fairly recently, that, if a Labour Government were elected—heaven preserve us—and abolished grant-maintained status, he would take immediate early retirement.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to Baverstock school. I have been circulating the cutting of Mr. Hammonds piece and the cutting about Baverstock school to all the parents who write to me about GM status, because it shows what can be achieved when governors, parents and teachers take their courage in both hands and decide that their fate and that of their children shall be in their own hands and not those of the county.

1061
Baverstock was an extremely rundown school, and now it is in fine fettle. Since becoming grant-maintained, it has taken on 12 new teachers. It was forecast that, once it gained GM status, it would get rid of children who were more difficult to educate—but far from it. Of those 12 teachers, two teach children with special needs on a one-to-one basis.
My right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) who, alas, is no longer in her place, suggested that school governors should get out the figures for how much better off their schools would be if they were grant-maintained. I have gone one better. I have found out how much better off every school in my constituency would be if it was grant-maintained, and I have circulated the figures to every head teacher and all chairmen of governors.
On Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) and I are holding a seminar to discuss with some head teachers and chairmen of governors who have—[Horn. MEMBERS: Who is paying for it?] It is at our expense—50:50. The seminar is so that teachers and governors can learn how much better off they would be from those schools which have already gained grant-maintained status. One school in my constituency has had a bite of almost £250,000 taken out of its funding by the county.
All schools would be better off. I have always known that, but I did not know by how much until I went into the matter so carefully. The people at the seminar will be able to hear for themselves what has happened to those who have gone down the path of GM status. They will be able to ask as many questions as they like. If hostile people attend, they will be more than welcome, because we will be able to convert them. The future of our children depends on such people having the chance of getting the money they should have direct from the Government. It should not be watered down by county hall, which fritters it away.
5.52 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: The speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was also a fascinating tirade. I was glad to hear the combative opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). I thought that the Secretary of State, however, made only a grimly determined speech. It did not convince the House. It was perhaps contrived by a desiccated calculating machine. The right hon. Lady certainly came to the House with a weak hand, and she delivered a very weak speech. Indeed, all she offered the nation, in effect, was tea and sympathy, to quote her words. It was an uncomfortable speech, and her supporters looked uncomfortable as well.
This year, I have made only nine visits to schools in my constituency. When I talk to the class teacher, I find morale very low indeed. When I talk to head teachers, I find them deeply worried. When I talk to governors, I find that they sometimes feel overwhelmed by what are now very onerous responsibilities.
When the deputation came to the House last week for the mass lobby by people from all over the country, I met four people from my locality—two class teachers, a representative of those who lead ancillary workers in the school service, and a local education authority
1062
chairperson. They made the point that there was an absolute and urgent need for more investment and more teachers in the school service.
Anybody who takes the trouble to visit our schools and spends some time in classrooms observing what is going on will quickly be converted to the side of the teacher. Most classrooms are a credit to enter. They display first-rate work. The decoration of the walls and the presentation of the various schemes and projects of the children show any visitor that the class teacher is doing first-rate work.
I praise the dedication, conscientiousness and professionalism of the teachers of our country. In the circumstances, they are doing a wonderful job. I would like them to receive more praise and more resources to enable them—even better than now—to deliver a first-rate service to the children in their care.
I could sum up the feeling of secondary school head teachers by citing the reaction of one, who said that there were very few problems in the school itself; the problems came through the letter box. Head teachers are angry at the demands made on them by ministerial fiat, by local education authority questionnaire and by various bulletins.
Head teachers at whatever level want to provide an even better service to the local children and parents. They feel overwhelmed time and time again by a tide of paper—by diktat from central Government—and they are asking for a respite while they try to cope with the demands which have already been made of them. They must be right. The nations schools now need a breathing space.
If we consider the impact of the leadership by a succession of Conservative Secretaries of State and their legislation, the House might think it sobering. First there was the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), then the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and then the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). It would be uncontroversial to say that those Secretaries of State were highly controversial.
Perhaps the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) tried to secure some peace in his work. From the contribution made by the right hon. Lady, the present Secretary of State, she appears to be suing for peace. History may be kind to the late Sir Keith Joseph, if only because of his technical and vocational education initiative. I did not think there was any malice, since there was certainly no command, from Lord Carlisle.
As Cabinet Ministers in charge of the nations school service, the reigns of the right hon. Members for Mole Valley and for Oxford, West and Abingdon and of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe were disastrous. They were always seeking to make a reputation, but in so doing, they almost destroyed the school service that they were supposed to be leading and restoring. They almost destroyed the coherence of the civil service, and of the inspectorate and its interface with the school service. Certainly the confidence and self-respect of the teaching force was gravely impaired by many Conservative Secretaries of State, and that communicated itself to parents and governing bodies.
Governing bodies then found that there was an urgent need to raise money through sales of work and so on to provide the essentials for our schools in the late 20th century. Her Majestys Government carelessly embarked

1063
on a series of privatisations of public utilities, and used the funds raised from those great sales of the family silver to give tax cuts to the better-off. Meanwhile, the cuts in the school service continued. That had to be wrong.
Today, there remains a miserable scene of cuts and frustration. Children in communities with large-scale unemployment and poverty are not getting the chances they deserve. They are only young once. Many children stay up far too late at night, are irregular attenders and exist on poor diets. Concentration can be woeful, and distractions are legion.
Many children in our schools do not have two parents, and for some children, the school is frequently a substitute home. It also provides them with a source of protein, and a venue for standards and for prayers. Schools are the places where right and wrong are patiently explained by dedicated teachers. We should not starve our schools of resources and of the desperately needed additional teachers.
From parliamentary answers given to me, I know that class sizes are creeping up, and now teachers are expected to cope with the consequences of a powerful social revolution roaring through our country—and this at a great pace. That poses serious problems for them, and they must be given the resources to get on with coping with those massive challenges.
Above all, parents are asking the Government for more teachers. In the primary sector, especially, average class sizes are increasing; in the smaller high schools there is a sense of desperation. We want central Government to provide a better delivery of the essential services at the chalk face for teachers, parents and governors.
To sum up, parents want the leaking roof to be plugged and the classrooms to be redecorated. They are not asking for the earth. They do not want a revolution; they simply want justice, and a fair deal from the Government.
6.2 pm
Mr. Patrick Thompson: In listening to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and to all the Opposition Members who have spoken so far, I detect a close similarity in their speeches. That reflects the lack of choice, diversity and excitement in Opposition education policies that always becomes clear in such debates. Perhaps that is partly explained by the report on the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), about which we enjoyed hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).
I am glad that this is a wide-ranging debate, because it will give me the chance to talk about selection, choice and excellence in education. Those issues underpin the reason why Opposition education policies have failed in the past, and will fail in the future, should they ever be tried.
As the debate is partly about teachers and their pay, perhaps at this stage I should declare a connection with, and an interest in, the Professional Association of Teachers.
There is no doubt that in the constituencies there has been a political campaign on education orchestrated by the Opposition. It has been unscrupulous and unhelpful and has done education no service at all. I have made a point of visiting schools in my constituency in Norwich, and I am well aware of the situation in Norfolk. The Secretary of State for Education is right when she says
1064
that schools problems should be examined objectively, discussed properly, and where there are difficulties—here I agree with Opposition Members—they should be debated and tackled. But that is not the same as a mega-political campaign that does education no good.
In Norfolk we recently had a meeting of governors and parents, and schools have been advised, unwisely I believe, to go beyond their deficits and to set illegal budgets. I agree with the Norfolk politicians who are telling the governors and parents that they should reconsider before plunging their schools into the red. I am glad to see one of the Opposition Members nodding in agreement, because it is the Labour leader of the Norfolk education committee who is giving that advice.
I am happy to support the Government amendment. After all, since 1979 there has been a substantial increase in education spending under the Conservative Government, and more money is available for local authorities than there was last year. But my main aim tonight is to highlight the Governments determination to improve standards and choice in education—and choice extends to methods of funding.
I believe that perhaps we should have moved more quickly to direct funding of schools by the state. I prefer the grant-maintained system, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster supports so enthusiastically, as do many of my hon. Friends. It represents a step in the right direction.
I support that mode of funding because of the greater transparency that it provides. Arguments about education would not be mixed up with standard spending assessments and local authorities if school funding were not mixed up with the complications of local authority funding. That is the problem. The problem is not the excellent performance by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is doing an excellent job, but the way in which schools are funded. I support those who say that we should have more direct funding and expand the grant-maintained sector where possible.
Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thompson: No, I shall not, because of the time limit; otherwise I should have been happy to do so.
I must refer to an important matter of which I have personal experience. The Opposition opposed the idea of grant-maintained schools, root and branch. I know that because I was on the Committee considering the legislation that introduced it. I am not sure what the Oppositions present view is; perhaps there will be more time to debate that on another occasion. However, they opposed it, root and branch, at the time, as they always oppose attempts to give parents, teachers and children greater diversity and choice in education.
Opposition Members may have forgotten what happened in the past, but I have not, because I entered teaching in 1960—at Manchester grammar school, which is in the news at the moment. I hope that Opposition Members will listen carefully to what I say because the Labour party, in Manchester and elsewhere, opposed everything that stood in the way of steamrollering in the comprehensive system. Whatever one may feel about comprehensive schools—and there are many good ones—the manner in which they were introduced did damage to

1065
education from which the country has still not yet recovered. That was done by Shirley Williams and by Anthony Crosland, who said:
if its the last thing I do, Im going to destroy every grammar school in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
The damage was done at that time, and that is why direct grant schools—such as Manchester grammar school, Bradford grammar school and many others—were forced, against their will and better judgment, to leave the state system.
I do not have time to say very much about this matter, but I remember the tradition of Manchester grammar school because I taught there. The tradition was to help poorer pupils who were bright to have the very best opportunities, and many Opposition Members and civil servants have gained from education at those schools.
The Labour party forced those schools to go independent. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who brackets those schools with other public schools. There is a difference, as the tradition of direct grant schools is to help poorer people. Labour was responsible for the plight of such schools.
The Labour party is still opposed to selection. Having read recent reports on the matter, I know that Manchester grammar school—even if it returns to the state, which it wants to do as that is true to its traditions—still believes in selection. I heard the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), and it is clear that Labour is still implacably opposed to selection. It is still on the egalitarian ticket which is doing so much damage to education, and it will have a problem in the future.
The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is important, because direct grant schools are still tremendous schools and everyone here recognises that. I hope that all Members will think seriously about ideas which have been put forward for their future. Perhaps the Schools Funding Council, or even the grant-maintained schools concept, is appropriate, but I understand the funding implications which lie behind that.
I think that I have made my point about the difficulties that the Opposition have in terms of education. It is the same old problem of levelling everyone down which always destroys Labours education policies; it could do so again. That is why I support the Governments amendment. We are right to go for choice and diversity and to encourage good standards, not only in our direct grant schools but in all schools. I hope that Ministers will continue to aim to fund education as much as they can, but—more importantly—that they will continue to pursue policies which will lead to the best quality of education for our young people.
6.12 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: This is an important debate on the most important asset of this nation—our children and their future education—and it is right to try to focus attention on what the Government are doing.
I wish to refer to a letter that appeared in the Burnley Express last Friday which underlines the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). In the main, the people who are leading the opposition to what is happening are not county councillors or Members of Parliament, but the parents and governors who
1066
recognise what is happening. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) referred to the involvement of parents and governors in the issue; if we want them to be genuinely involved in the local management of schools, we must take account of what was in that letter.
The letter stated:
As a school governor and parent, I am appalled at the horrendous cuts in school budgets which the Government is to impose in the financial year 1995/96 … If letters arrive by the sackful we may be able to persuade the Government to stop these swingeing cuts which are about to befall schools and, ultimately, if left alone will destroy our education system.
Many parents and governors—they are not involved in politics, and are not Conservatives, Liberals or Labour supporters—say that, following the introduction of local management of schools they have been given responsibilities to do certain things, but they have not been given the finances to do the job. Many of them do not understand that, because they believe that the Government have given them the responsibility and genuinely expect them to do the job. That is why they are now concerned at the further tightening of the financial screw which will occur this year.
The front-page headline of the Lancashire Evening Telegraph last night was Savage Staff Cuts At Schools. The story underneath went on to say:
Secondary schools throughout East Lancashire are facing cutbacks averaging £100,000 each and are having to ask two or three teachers to take early retirement.
At least one school is also considering spending more than it has been allowed by Lancashire County Council to try to stave off the worst effects of the most savage cuts in years.
A teacher from St Theodores high school in my constituency said:
We are reducing our staff level by three. They will be taking early retirement. Spending on capitation—books and equipment—is frozen at last years level which is almost the same as the previous years. Repairs and maintenance will be down to essential, day-to-day repairs.
The editorial of the Lancashire Evening Telegraph yesterday stated:
The cruel truth is that for the sake of a relatively small amount of cash, everyone is suffering. Children, the most important people of all, tomorrows citizens who will ultimately hold the future of this country in their hands, will receive the direct hit.
Then there are dedicated and already hard-pressed teachers wondering whether they will be out on the streets next week.
Parents, too, are worried sick about their childrens future worrying if they will get the attention they need, whether those with special needs will have enough help, and whether even the brightest can manage to cope against a background of cutbacks and decaying buildings … The latest round of cuts is an iniquity. The pain is not limited to Lancashire, it is being felt all over the country.
Things have gone too far this time. Before long, one way or another, those responsible can expect the caning they deserve.
We all want the opportunity to make those responsible pay for the cuts. They should be put into opposition, and let us take over the Government and provide money for education, as one of our priorities is to ensure that education is provided with the funds that it needs.
I have been in correspondence in recent weeks with Ministers, including the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools whose word processor must be

1067
churning out replies by the dozen. The Minister made a number of wrong statements in a letter that he sent to me. He stated:
Allowing for the reform of inter-authority recruitment, Lancashires education SSA for 1995–96 represents an increase of 1.4 per cent. (almost £7 million)—above the national average increase of 1.2 per cent.
What the Minister did not say was that that 1.4 per cent. is tied directly to the increase in the number of children within the county of Lancashire. Last year, Lancashire got 2.3 per cent. against the average at that time of 2.7 per cent. because of the increase in the number of children on that occasion. He also failed to say that the figure is less than the rate of inflation. If so, it is really a cut, however anyone may wish to look at it, and the Government cannot get away with saying that it is not a cut.
The Minister went on to refer in his letter to school balances of some £700 million at the end of March 1994, adding that
it is not unreasonable to think that some at least of this sum could be applied towards the pay settlement where it is possible for that to happen.
The Minister also says that that money should be used to help with school repairs and maintenance, as well as with the pay settlement; so he wants to use it twice. Neither he nor the Secretary of State know what the balances will be at the end of the current financial year. It must be taken into account that it is not spare money hanging around in school coffers. Each school needs to keep about 3 to 5 per cent. so that they do not run into deficit and have to borrow money. Almost all schools have committed projects on which they wish to spend that money to enable them to provide a better education to the children whom they teach.
The Under-Secretary of State for Schools then said:
How Lancashire determines its spending priorities for the services for which it is responsible is solely a matter for the County Council.
What nonsense when, because of how local government is now funded, the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Education effectively fix the budget for every county council and borough council in the country. There is no flexibility or room for manoeuvre as budgets are fixed and rigid.
Lancashire county council is spending 108 per cent. of the SSA which it is deemed necessary to spend on education. That means that Lancashire county council regards education as so important that it spends 8 per cent. more than the Government wish it to spend. What the Minister fails to say is, if Lancashire county council spends more, where that money will come from. It is capped, so the money must come from cuts in other services. Should those be in social services? Should we close more homes for the elderly? What should we do? What the Minister says is nonsense.
In her speech today, the Secretary of State inadvertently misconstrued the evidence—I choose my words carefully—that was supplied to her. She said that Lancashire county council chose to impose cuts in education amounting to £19 million when officers recommended cuts of £13 million.
1068
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has checked on those figures during this debate. He found that the officers gave an illustrative figure if the cuts were to be 4 per cent. They also gave a big list of cuts totalling £42 million from which the county council could select. Ultimately, it had to come forward with cuts of 5.5 per cent., which is the £19 million to which the Secretary of State referred, so it was wrong to give the impression which the Secretary of State gave.
Lancashire county council does not have enough money to provide its services. It is time that the Government gave it more money and allowed it to provide the education that our children need.
6.22 pm
Sir Peter Emery: First, I apologise to the House for being absent for 45 minutes. I had to leave the Chamber to take the Chair of the Procedure Select Committee, but I hastened back immediately. I was determined to speak because of how the Liberal Democrats in Devon have set out to mislead the people of Devon and because of the speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who, in Goebbels fashion, kept repeating a misrepresentation about the Government. The Government are not discredited. They have a new desire to ensure that people are properly represented, and the Opposition had better realise that in the next two years.
I make the accusation against the Liberal Democrats because, even before they had agreed a budget for Devon, their chief education officer said that, as the Government had cut Devons grant for education, teachers would have to be sacked. Parents do not think that education should be a political football. They are interested in their childrens education and want that carried out properly and as efficiently as possible.
Let us look at the truth. On the accusation by the county council that funding for education was being cut, in 1994–95, the standard spending assessment for education in Devon was £321.7 million. For the coming year, it is £328.4 million—no cut whatever but an increase of £6.8 million, the equivalent of more than £51 for every child in education in the county of Devon.
On the accusation that the Conservative party has paid no attention to education and are not interested in it, let us look at the education SSA for Devon over the past five-year period. In 1990–91, it was £276 million; by 1992–93, it had increased to £343 million. Given that, in 1993–94, sixth forms and FE colleges were taken away, expenditure for Devon was estimated to decrease by £34 million, but it still increased to £314 million that year. As I said, in 1994–95, it increased to £321 million. Whichever way we look at the matter—whether we put the £34 million at the beginning or at the end, because statistically it can be done either way—the SSA for education in Devon rose by between 30 and 35 per cent. over those five years, which represents a direct gain for Devon.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the figures provided by the House of Commons Library, based on a parliamentary question, show that in real terms, the cuts in SSA per primary school pupil in Devon are £46 and, per secondary school

1069
pupil, £178? Will he also confirm that the failure to provide funding for the teachers pay award is costing Devon county council £5 million?
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman is so misleading as to be wrong. What I am trying to explain is that net institutional expenditure for nursery and primary education in Devon is £1,879 per pupil, which is the average of any county in the country. The accusation that Devon is doing worse than other counties is wrong. It is interesting to note that expenditure per pupil in the nursery and primary and the secondary sectors has increased. In 1992–93, Devon was 24th and 25th respectively in the national league and in 1995–96 it was 19th and 18th respectively as a result of the increases which the Government have provided. That is how the Government have been assisting education in Devon.
What is so wrong is that Devon county council is taking money away from education and putting it into other services. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, will he consider the fact that education SSA should be ring-fenced so that local authorities cannot use education SSA for purposes other than education? Despite the increase in funding for Devon of £6.8 million, most schools have had their education budgets cut. How can that possibly be right?
Let us consider the alternatives that Devon was given. A budget was suggested by the Devon Conservative group, which would have ensured another £4.4 million for education in Devon and would have restricted the amount to the capping level. However, the Liberal Democrats have chosen a budget that will have to be capped. They voted the Conservative budget down. That cannot make sense and must be wrong.
Spending per pupil in the country has increased by almost 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Spending per pupil on books and equipment has increased by 31 per cent. in real terms. Let us consider the teachers, because those are the people whom most of us want to look after. The average teachers pay will be between £20,000 and £22,000 a year from April 1995. Since 1979, the average teachers pay has increased by 36 per cent. That is considerably greater than the average increase in wages of 23 per cent. for the rest of the country. Teacher vacancies today are fewer than at nearly any time in our history.
What are the alternatives? We are ensuring that there is a national curriculum; what does the Labour party wish to do about that? It opposed the national curriculum, but I think that it will now accept it. The regular testing and assessment of children and students is an essential part of our education reform. The informal revolution involving the publication of results is a major benefit for parents and must be judged as such; and the examination results, GCSE and A-levels, are better than ever. That is what Conservative education policy is doing; it does not resemble the terrifying story that we heard from the Opposition Front Bench.
What do the Liberal Democrats want to do? They want to remove the right of parents to choose their childrens school; they oppose grant-maintained schools; they want to abolish objective testing and performance tables; and
1070
they want to end the assisted places scheme and scrap A-levels, although I think that they are having second thoughts about that now.
Mr. Don Foster: No we are not.
Sir Peter Emery: We now have a definite statement.
The Liberal Democrats also want further and higher education institutes to submit to local authority control.
Is that what the country really wants? [HON. MEMBERS: No.] Of course it is not. Therefore we need to ensure that we stop having battles such as this about education. Let us make it absolutely clear what the Conservative party has achieved. If we let people in Devon know what the Conservative party will do for education in Devon, we will be a lot better off.
6.32 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make before I call the next speaker. In his speech moving the motion now before the House, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) used some words that were challenged at the time by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools. I explained to the House that my attention was disturbed at the time, and I undertook to look at the transcript. I have now been able to do so.
The hon. Member for Brightside was challenging the validity of education statistics given by members of the Government at various times in the recent past. Although he explained later the meaning he intended to convey, in my view he went too far in describing the Chief Secretary to the Treasury as ethically challenged and saying, in his words, that they—that is, Ministers—cannot tell the truth.
I know that the House can get over-excited in major debates of this kind and that words are used which, when read on the page, appear clearly unparliamentary. While accepting what the hon. Member said after my second intervention, I think it would clear the matter up if he would formally withdraw the two brief unparliamentary phrases to which I have now drawn attention.
Mr. Blunkett: Madam Speaker, I was aware of your concern on the issue of the second phrase that has been used, and I unconditionally agree to withdraw that. I should be grateful, because it is the first time that it has been raised with me, in relation to the phrase that I used in respect of the Chief Secretary—
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Member were to look at the words in the dictionary as to the meaning of being ethically challenged, it is a question of morally not knowing right from wrong, and it is quite a serious parliamentary statement. As I said, I understand the hon. Gentleman did try to clear the matter up later, but I should be much obliged if he would withdraw, so that we might proceed with the debate.
Mr. Blunkett: Of course I accept your ruling, and I would not for a minute accuse Ministers of not knowing what they were doing.
Madam Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we can now proceed with the debate.
6.34 pm
Mr. Greg Pope: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on his speech in opening the debate, which he did extraordinarily well in the face of what appeared to be organised disruption by the yobbo tendency on the Conservative Benches.
I found the Secretary of States comments—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down and hear the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Pope: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I found the Secretary of States comments, although not surprising, certainly disappointing. She seemed to be trying to blame everyone else for the cuts in education rather than taking any responsibility herself. Education Ministers have a duty to take responsibility for what happens to the countrys education service, but they have failed to do so.
My constituency is a marginal seat which was held by the Conservatives until the most recent election. By no stretch of the imagination could it be described as Labour heartland, but I have to tell Conservative Members that the Government are no longer despised or loathed in my constituency—it has gone far beyond that. The vast majority of my constituents, even those who voted for the Conservatives at the last election, now hold the Government in contempt, because the Government are never prepared to accept that it may be they who have made a mistake or got it wrong.
As councillors struggle to balance budgets and school governors are confronted with the prospect of having to sack teachers, what is the reaction of the Government? Is it to take some of the responsibility for that? Is it to show some leadership? No, it is not. The Governments reaction is to blame councils, governors, the BBC—anyone rather than themselves. It is no wonder that they are held in utter contempt.
I have had letters from representatives of every type of school in my constituency—aided schools, council-maintained schools, primary schools and secondary schools—all expressing genuine outrage at the level of cuts confronting them. I have even received a letter from the chair of governors of a grant-maintained school, although there are no GM schools in my constituency—parents and governors in Hyndburn have far more sense than to want the education service to be dismantled in the way that GM status implies.
Following the comments of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who is no longer in her place, about the so-called benefits of GM status in Lancashire, it is interesting to consider what the chair of governors of St. Wilfrids GM school in Blackburn, which is in a neighbouring constituency to mine and which some of my constituents attend, had to say about the effects of Government policy. In a letter to the Secretary of State, he said:
even after allowing for a known reduction of 2.5 staff, and a possible further reduction of two staff, a drastic cut in spending on capitation items will be inevitable and together these will have a very serious effect on the curriculum. If part of the cost of the pay award has to be borne as well as these reductions, it will not be possible for a budget to be approved which would enable the schools commitments to pupils to be met.
There we have it.
1072
GM schools are the Governments flagship. Yet the chairman of governors of a GM school in Lancashire admits that, as a result of the Governments funding of GM schools as well as local education authority schools, his school will not be able to meet its commitments to pupils. That is a disgrace. It is no wonder that the promised avalanche of school opt-outs has failed to materialize.
The chairman of governors of St. Wilfrids GM school and the great number of other people who have written to me are not Labour party activists. They are not even Labour party members. I have no idea what their political affiliations are. They entered the teaching profession and became school governors because they cared about children and wanted to contribute to a successful education system, and they are extremely angry about the current situation.
A secondary school in my constituency was recently praised by the Office of Standards in Education. It is now about to lose 3.6 teachers. A large primary school in Accrington, in an area of intense social deprivation, a school where four out of five pupils have English as a second language, has lost three teachers in the past six months as a result of the Governments cuts in section 11 funding. Now the head teacher telephones me to say that it will have to lose another three teachers, possibly another four, as a result of that round of cuts.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pope: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) has only just returned to the Chamber and my speaking time is limited to 10 minutes.
Leaving aside the current round of cuts that the Government are inflicting on the education system, I should be grateful if, in summing up the debate, the Minister could explain how he justifies the cuts in section 11 funding for children and teachers in schools such as the one to which I have referred in my constituency. It is nothing short of an act of barbarism meted out to the most vulnerable children who are struggling within the education system. The Minister should be ashamed at the way in which the Government have cut that funding.
A primary school in another part of my constituency has received a favourable report from Ofsted, which found good relationships between staff and pupils and very good student behaviour. It is a school of which we can all be proud. However, the head teacher has told me that that school is to lose the equivalent of 2.3 teachers. One of the year 2 classes is to disappear, which will drive up the number of pupils in the other classes. Teachers will lose what little non-contact time they have at present.
That is happening in one school after another, not just in my constituency but up and down the country. Ofsted inspectors make constructive suggestions about how schools can improve, and the schools are keen to implement those suggestions, but they then find themselves unable to do so because they no longer have the resources.
Decision making in schools up and down the country is being driven increasingly not by educational requirements, but by budgetary needs. Children with special educational needs who attend mainstream schools—particularly those children who have emotional and behavioural difficulties—are not being catered for as

1073
effectively this year as they were last year, and they will not be provided for as effectively next year as they are being provided for now.
The Government have stubbornly failed to comprehend that the code of practice—which the Opposition welcomed—has resource implications. Until they do so, the problems will be compounded. There are increasing health and safety risks as children are taught in overcrowded classrooms, with dilapidated furniture and equipment that schools cannot afford to replace.
I know that some Conservative Members will seek to blame local education authorities for those problems. I have some experience of the distortions being peddled—not by hon. Members, of course, Madam Speaker, but by Tory central office—about my local education authority in Lancashire. It has been suggested that Lancashire has one bureaucrat for every 17 teachers, but that is not true. To arrive at that figure, one would have to include every educational psychologist in the county, every educational welfare officer, every adviser, and all the staff who deal with statements. They are not pen-pushers or bureaucrats; those people provide essential, core, front-line statutory education services. If Conservative Members do not understand, it shows how much they have to learn about education in this country.
It has been said that Lancashire should allocate more funding to schools so that they would have more money to spend. But Lancashire already spends far in excess of the Governments allocation target on education. Most of the centrally retained funds in Lancashire relate to statements and even if they were delegated to schools it would not compensate for the cash cuts that the Government have imposed.
There has been distortion after distortion, as the Government have sought to evade responsibility for the cuts. They said that Lancashire has large cash reserves. Again, that is not true. The local authority is operating on a minimal budget.
Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pope: No, I will not give way.
Conservative Members have suggested that Lancashire has too many surplus places. Yet Lancashire has met and exceeded every Department for Education target for reducing those surpluses. If every surplus place in Lancashire were abolished tomorrow, it would save the authority £500,000. But the authority is facing education cuts of £28.3 million in the coming financial year.
The Government are comprehensively failing my children, the children of my constituents, and children up and down the land. The Secretary of State has sought to avoid any responsibility for those cuts, and I am sure that the Minister will do the same in his winding-up speech: he will try to shift the responsibility on to local education authorities, governors and anyone else. But we know who is really responsible: the Secretary of State, the Minister and their colleagues in the Treasury who are more concerned about taking a penny off income tax in six months time in a squalid attempt to bribe the electors yet again rather than spending the money where it is really needed—in the classrooms in my constituency and in those up and down the country. The Governments policy is a disgrace.
Madam Speaker: I call Mr. David Evennett.
6.44 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I welcome the opportunity to draw attention to the situation in schools in my constituency, and particularly that in the 15 primary schools which I have visited during the past year. I did so in response to an organised campaign urging parents to complain about over-sized classes, adverse comparisons between our education standard spending assessment—[Interruption.] Is there a problem, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: Yes. I called Mr. Evennett, but I am very willing to hear from Mr. Atkinson.
Mr. Atkinson: I am relieved to hear that, Madam Speaker. I was saying that I visited 15 primary schools in my constituency in response to an organised campaign urging parents to complain about over-sized classes, the adverse comparisons of our education SSA with that of neighbouring counties, and a lack of resources generally.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools for his helpful responses to those concerns. He pointed out that parents and teachers can be misled into making false comparisons between the SSAs of local education authorities, and that my local education authority of Dorset has not done at all badly in recent years in response to our representations. A 27 per cent. funding increase between 1991 and 1993 was followed by a 4.9 per cent. increase last year.
I cannot argue with those figures, which are well ahead of inflation. I also cannot argue with the trend in the amount that we receive per pupil compared with other LEAs. It is moving in the right direction. Nevertheless, it is clear from the meetings that I have had with head teachers and from the visits that I have paid to primary schools in my constituency that those schools are deteriorating. Their essential problem is overcrowding, with classes of 35 or more packed into rooms designed to take 25 or fewer. At one school, two toilets serve 100 boys, and in another a mobile classroom has been condemned for eight years. That is simply unacceptable.
Why has that situation arisen? It is simply because the LEA has failed to anticipate and plan for the school population explosion that we are experiencing in the Bournemouth borough. It seems that our present strategic planning system fails to match increasing education provision—that is, school places and class sizes—with planning permissions which inevitably attract young families. It is simply irresponsible to allow new housing developments without providing for the education of the children who move into them. Housing association developments are approved without taking account of the extra provision for special needs that will inevitably be required. I give an unreserved welcome, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), to the Governments acceptance last week of the Local Government Commissions recommendation that Bournemouth should return to unitary authority status and become its own LEA once again.
In spite of that situation, we have no complaints about our teachers. The education standards that are achieved, despite those difficulties, are above the national average. The schools are passing their first ever Ofsted inspections, which is a great tribute to the teachers professionalism, dedication and commitment. I believe that insufficient public acknowledgement is given to the teachers and head teachers who are delivering the educational achievements

1075
for which we claim credit. My hon. Friend the Minister will also be encouraged to learn that those teachers whom I met were unanimous in welcoming the more streamlined curriculum, the simplified testing, the 20 per cent. free periods, the promise of less paperwork, and not least the promise of no more changes for the next five years. I hope that that promise will be borne out in fact.
Teachers also welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the review bodys recommended pay increase. I hope and expect that my LEA will enable teachers to receive that increase in full. I have no problem with the policy for LEAs to make provision for teachers pay in their budgets. That is what local government is or should be all about, although this years SSA settlement represents the greatest challenge since education spending was cut by £1.6 billion under the last Labour Government.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her opening speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it plain in his Budget statement last November that this year is the crunch year for getting our public borrowing down and I fully accept his strategy. If he succeeds, parents, governors and teachers can expect the increased resources for our schools that they rightly demand. What I should like to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend is that the commitment that the Government are honouring to increase resources substantially to the NHS should also be extended to education.
There should be more resources for special needs to ensure the success of the new code of practice which teachers have welcomed. Without extra funding, there is a real danger that some schools will refuse to recognise those children requiring special needs. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies to this debate, I hope that he will assure me that when Bournemouth becomes an LEA in two years time its education SSA will reflect our urban labour costs better than the present SSA of Dorset has been able to do.
Finally, I hope that every school in my constituency will continue to keep the issue of grant-maintained status on their governors agendas. They owe it to their pupils and to parents not to ignore the resounding success stories of grant-maintained schools. As the headmaster of St. Walbergas school, the only grant-maintained primary school in Bournemouth, told me last month, it has enabled him and his governors to decide their own priorities, it has been good for his school, and he would not go back. That is the message that my right hon. Friend and her team must continue to bring to the attention of every school, notwithstanding the obstacles being put in the way by Labour and Liberal LEAs.
6.51 pm
Mr. Don Touhig: Until a month or so before I came to the House, I was chair of my county council finance committee, and for the past few years, together with my colleagues on Gwent county council, I have strived to protect front-line services from the worst excesses of public spending cuts imposed by the Government.
In the financial settlement for local authorities announced by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Wales, councils were told that they could expect an
1076
increase of 2.7 per cent. in funding for the coming year, but when the funding for police was stripped away, and with it the provision for careers services, the real increase is a paltry 0.7 per cent. Against that background, LEAs, working in partnership with school governors, sought to protect our childrens education.
I have been a school governor since I was 18, and I have never known a time when teachers have been more demoralised and so many want to leave the profession. They are good and experienced teachers, such as those I met at last weeks lobby; they are teachers whom the education service can ill afford to lose, but under the present Government they feel undervalued and taken for granted. They are blamed for falling education standards and for all societys ills, from rising crime to industrialists saying that they cannot recruit enough skilled people.
The Governments failure to give teachers the respect that their contribution to society deserves has brought us to the sorry state we are in today, as school governors, many of them supporters of the Conservative party, are faced with the prospect of sacking teachers because they cannot afford to employ them.
The Government will not fund the teachers pay award. What is the reason for that? Can the country not afford it, or do they have something else in mind? Last year, one of the schools in Gwent balloted parents on whether or not it should go grant-maintained. The parents rejected the notion of leaving the partnership with the LEA, but the pro-opt-out campaigners were able to distribute to every parent promoting grant-maintained status a rather classy video produced by the Department for Education at a cost of £64,000. They have no money for textbooks or for teachers pay, but they have plenty of money for political propaganda. That is the record of the Government.
In commenting on the case being made across the country for the Government to allocate additional funds to meet the costs of the teachers pay award, the Chancellor has insisted that LEAs have sufficient funds to meet the award and to fund schools adequately, if only they would reduce the wasteful bureaucracy in town and county halls.
In many LEAs, Gwent included, the councils budget strategy for some years—certainly since local management of schools was introduced—has been designed to protect school budget shares despite cuts imposed by Government.
In the past three years, Gwent county council has taken almost £18 million from balances to sustain front-line services such as education. Schools in Gwent hold almost £8 million in balances, but the money is not evenly shared. Some larger schools have built up balances intended for projects in the coming year. Some have a few hundred pounds, and others have nothing at all.
The formula is so constructed that we cannot do anything to help the schools that are worst off. It is not possible to top-slice school budgets to help less well-off schools, because that would cut right across the board. It would be taking from the poor to help the rich—something that the Conservative party has been doing ever since it came to power.
As for the so-called wasteful central bureaucracy, many education authorities have pursued a vigorous policy of scrutinising all vacancies in order to reduce costs. They have slimmed down central staffing levels, and constantly keep them under review.

1077
In a typical LEA, the proportion of the total education budget controlled by schools themselves is around 65 per cent., the remaining 35 per cent. being used on nursery education, which, despite the sweet words of the Prime Minister, is still the statutory responsibility of local education bodies to provide. They also use it for adult education, public libraries and the so-called bureaucratic central services.
What are the bureaucratic central services that the Conservative party would sweep away without so much as a second glance? They include services provided directly for pupils and students: the operation of home-to-school and home-to-college transport, educational psychology services, services for pupils with special needs, and the operation of discretionary awards to students.
Who are the bureaucrats, and how does sacking them affect learning opportunities? The bureaucrats are those who, for example, prepare statements on special educational needs for pupils with learning difficulties. They are the people who administer free school meals for pupils from families on income support, and there are plenty of those as a result of the Governments dependency culture policy. They deal with pupil welfare and truancy. They support pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds who have poor or little English. They are the architects and engineers who plan and implement education building programmes. They are the craftsmen and technicians who organise and carry out repairs and maintenance to schools. They provide financial management support for heads and governing bodies. They organise the payment of salaries and wages to school staffs, and educate children in hospital or at home if they cannot attend school.
Those people advise and support teachers in the implementation of the national curriculum, and with the number of changes that the Government have made to the national curriculum, that has almost become an industry in itself. They teach pupils to swim or to play a musical instrument. They administer Government regulations on the citizens charter, student awards and grants for education support and training, and ensure that the education Acts are implemented.
Public service is labour-intensive. We cannot take teachers out of the classrooms and sit children in front of computer screens and say that that is education. We cannot sack home care assistants and give every pensioner in the land a microwave and say that that is care in the community, and we cannot take bobbies off the beat, put video cameras on street corners and say that that is policing.
When council budgets are squeezed and various departments compete for funds for services, the number of posts in the central services of an LEA are obviously reduced—to what effect? Parents have to pay for or contribute towards the cost of their children receiving tuition in swimming or a musical instrument. Nursery schools are closed or reduced in size. Tuition for children too ill to attend schools is reduced.
School buildings are not maintained adequately. Awards to students attending further education classes are reduced or delayed. Fewer adult education classes are provided. LEA youth clubs are closed, often with a social price to pay. Delays occur in providing pupils with statements for special educational needs or free school meals. Advice and support for teachers attempting to
1078
deliver the full national curriculum are reduced, or totally eliminated in some subjects. Libraries are closed, or have restricted opening hours; school meal prices are raised.
In other words, parents may have to pay more for services. The support given to pupils by local education authorities is reduced. The community as a whole loses learning opportunities in adult education classes and youth activities. Schools are given less support in the fulfilment of their responsibilities, and buildings fall into disrepair.
The Government fail to recognise that local education authorities are non-profit-making organisations, whose only reason for existence is to deliver education in partnership with school governors. LEAs are democratically run by elected councillors, who often work in coalition with teachers, parents and representatives of religious denominations. There is none of the quango state there.
Parents and teachers recognise the value of the support services provided by LEAs: they know that sacking those employed in support services to find money for the teachers pay award is no answer. Adequate funds for teachers and those who support them is needed if we are to deliver a rich and meaningful education service—but I fear that hell will freeze over before the Conservative party recognises that.
7 pm
Mr. David Evennett: Education is important to everyone, not just those going through the school system or parents of schoolchildren. It highlights major differences between the main political parties. This country needs a well-educated and well-trained work force to compete in world markets, and the Governments education policies will ensure that we secure it.
I was disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who confirmed what people in my borough of Bexley have always believed—that Liberal Democrats have no education policies, local or national. Conservative Members have a distinctive education philosophy that encompasses opportunity, choice and diversity; we also strongly believe in standards, discipline and testing in schools. We want parents, as the primary educators of children who have a vital role to play, to be allowed choice. Labour does not believe in opportunity and choice for parents: the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) contained no policies, and no concern for parents or standards.
I was privileged to attend a grammar school in the 1960s, where I was given a very good education. Such schools were destroyed by the Labour party in the 1960s and 1970s, and replaced by huge monolithic comprehensives. In the 1970s, I was a school governor in Hackney, and saw at first hand what Labour local government was like under a Labour Administration. We endured appalling standards, demoralised teachers and a general decline in education. During the past 16 years, there has been a gradual improvement, with education reforms, investment and development.
The untruths that we have heard from Opposition Members must be nailed. They do not like to be reminded of their record when Labour was in office in the 1960s and 1970s, when resources were reduced and standards fell. Expectations were low then, and teachers were demoralised. We know, however, that, since 1979, spending per pupil has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms; spending on books and equipment has risen by 55

1079
per cent. in real terms. Opposition Members do not like to hear those figures, but we must continually remind them of the facts.
Teacher vacancies are now at an all-time low, and teachers pay has increased by 59 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That is a real achievement, thanks to Conservative policies and Conservative government: that is what is really happening in education, and what has happened for the past 16 years.
I want to concentrate on two aspects of education: nursery education and education for those over 16, in which regard I think the Government still have work to do. Much of the debate over the past 30 years has centred on secondary schools—their type and organisation, the implications of the national curriculum, the effects of local management of schools and grant-maintained status and so forth.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: All Tory policies.
Mr. Evennett: Indeed they are—all opposed by Labour, all supported by parents and all doing good in the education world. The Government should be congratulated on re-establishing the foundations of good, balanced, effective secondary education: it now provides choice, diversity, opportunity and improving standards.
In primary education, too, considerable strides have been made. The return to good, traditional teaching is bringing results. A number of primary schools in my constituency and my borough of Bexley never abandoned the traditional approach, and continue to flourish. St Paulinus Church of England school in Crayford, under the leadership of Mr. Vinall, has an excellent reputation, as has Hillsgrove school in Welling, which I visited last Friday. I was extremely impressed by the work of the head teacher, Mrs. Spooncer, and her staff. As I toured the school with the chairman of the governors, Councillor John Raggett, I observed much good practice, achievement and enthusiastic learning.
That is what we have achieved in 16 years of Conservative government: that is the real story of education today—not the doom and gloom that we hear from the Labour party, or the non-policies advanced by the hon. Member for Bath.
I commend the Prime Ministers commitment to expanding nursery provision. My borough of Bexley already has a rolling programme of increased provision, established by the previous Conservative-controlled council. I believe that children benefit from learning and socialising before they reach the statutory school age. I am well aware that some 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds are already involved in some form of pre-school activity, and I support the expansion of nursery education, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to abandon the Conservative belief in choice and variety.
The establishment of a monolithic provision by local authorities would be a disaster. I strongly support the voucher system: not only would parents be allowed a real choice, but the providers of nursery education would have to ensure that they were offering parents and pupils the highest standard of service.
I am also concerned about the possible effects on playgroups. My constituency has some excellent playgroups, providing a first-class service for children,
1080
parents and the local community. I do not want such good institutions to be destroyed. My recent visits to local groups—including a first-class group at Christchurch in Erith—have shown me the educational content, the dedication of group leaders, the support of mothers and the enthusiasm of the children. We must not destroy good organisations; we must ensure that balance and choice are available in future provision.
Much has been achieved in post-16 education, and there is a good story to tell. I congratulate the Ministers, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, who recently visited our local university in south-east London—the university of Greenwich, where so much good work has been done.
I stress that, like other speakers, I strongly support the traditional A-level examination and school sixth forms, both of which provide a benchmark of excellence which should not be destroyed. Sixth-form education also enhances schools in many ways. Sixth-form education and A-levels are not popular with the Labour party, but Conservative Members believe that they have a vital part to play in education for those over 16.
My borough is fortunate in having a first-class further education college, Bexley college. Under its principal, Dr. Jim Healey, it is another success story. The Governments policy of giving colleges autonomy and freedom from LEA control has helped the sector enormously. The expansion of Bexley colleges pupil numbers and courses is a worthwhile consequence of that development. More resources, vocational courses, students and mature students have given post-16 education a boost. I welcome the Governments achievements. I am a great believer in continuing education, and welcome the post-16 development.
We have only to remember the way the Inner London education authority operated to know that money alone does not guarantee good education. More money per pupil was put into ILEA than into any other authority. More money was also wasted by that profligate authority. The results were disastrous. We abolished ILEA and gave more power to parents, teachers and governors.
That is the way forward in increasing success and raising standards, and Government policies are the right policies. They are supported by parents, and the results will show in educational achievement—and the pupils will be the beneficiaries.
7.10 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). In 21 years in the House, I have never heard a more snivelling and ingratiating speech. Such a speech makes Uriah Heep sound like a man of principle. It was appalling.
The one good thing about the hon. Gentlemans presence in the House is that at least it means that he is not lecturing schoolchildren. One can say little else about such a speech. Any resemblance between it and educational realities is purely coincidental. I hope that the hon. Gentlemans opponents at the next general election, whoever they are, will point that out.
The picture in the metropolitan borough of Sandwell is a good deal less rosy than that painted by Conservative Members. The four of us who have the honour to

1081
represent constituencies in that borough are, as you know, Madam Speaker, seeking a meeting with Ministers to discuss education provision and the shortfall arising from the settlement that we are debating. The capital programme allocation for the borough totals only £275,000 for a population of 250,000 people, which is parsimonious to say the least. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will offer some hope.
At that level, the settlement represents a loss of £1 million per annum on recent years. Given the problems and backlog of work in the primary and secondary sectors in Sandwell, the settlement is intolerable. For primary schools, there is a backlog of £10 million, including £8.5 million for three replacement schools for Warley infant, Black Heath primary and Great Bridge primary schools.
The head teacher and chair of governors of Tipton Green junior school in your constituency, Madam Speaker, have written to all four Members of Parliament about its phase 2 project, describing as a paltry sum the capital building allocation—particularly that for Tipton Green. Given that phase 1 has been completed, it would be scandalous and wasteful not to proceed with phase 2. I hope that the Minister will comment when he winds up, or when he meets the boroughs Members of Parliament, as I hope he will, in the near future.
There is a similarly sad story to be told in respect of secondary schools. We have heard much about the so-called irresponsibility of local education authorities. Most are controlled by the Labour party because of the present Governments prolonged incompetence. It will not do for Conservative Members to shrug off all responsibility for the crisis facing schools in Sandwell and elsewhere by blaming the LEA.
I will pick at random one item of secondary education expenditure in Sandwell—Menzies high school in my constituency, where a serious fire last year destroyed one building. The insurance claim shortfall for the cost of replacing that building is £500,000. One cannot blame the LEA, but the Government are giving no consideration to meeting that shortfall.
Dartmouth high school is the biggest LEA school in the west midlands, with more than 1,700 pupils. It faces a £1.1 million bill for replacements and general repairs. Its all-weather sports pitch cannot be used, because of lack of money for repairs. Three teachers retiring this year cannot be replaced, according to the chair of governors to whom I spoke this afternoon, because the school does not have the funds. He said, Its a blessing that we had a comparatively mild winter, because we have spent money allocated to the gas bill on general upkeep and repairs—broken windows and the other things that happen in schools these days. Again, no provision has been made for that in the schools capital grant settlement.
Worst of all for Dartmouth high school, given that its orchestra is well known throughout the west midlands, £7,000 has been cut from its music budget. What is wrong with the Government that they cannot see the damage being done to schools and education in areas such as mine?
Many figures have been bandied about, and most of those from the Secretary of State were misleading. In Sandwell, budget share per pupil in the primary sector in the financial year 1993–94 was £1,322. In 1995–96, it will fall to £1,319. The share per pupil is even worse in the secondary sector. In 1993–94, it was £2,041. In 1995–96, it will be down to £2,000.
1082
Taking 1993–94 as a base, and allowing for inflation of 3 per cent. in 1994–95 and 2.5 per cent. in 1995–96, just to stand still Sandwell should have a budget share per primary pupil of £1,396, but it is receiving £77 less. In the secondary sector, it should have £2,155, but it will have £155 less than that per pupil.
Why is Sandwells allocation per pupil done on the cheap? Why do each of the pupils whom I and my hon. Friends represent have a budget share of £200 less than pupils in the borough of Westminster? Why do the Government think they can continue getting away with rigging standard spending assessments to favour a few chosen boroughs? There is no fairness in the allocation of resources, particularly for education, when a borough such as Sandwell suffers from real terms cuts.
Much has been said about the Governments failure to fund the teachers pay rise. It is a collective act of hypocrisy to agree a figure at national level but refuse to fund it, saying that it is someone elses problem and that local authorities such as Sandwell are supposed to find the money from their own resources. Do not the Government accept any responsibility for their decisions? Will it always be somebody elses fault? The Government are fooling nobody. One week ago, there was a lobby of thousands of teachers, governors and parents from all over the country. None of them is fooled by the Governments propaganda. They know full well who is to blame.
At least one good thing came out of that lobby. On the day of the lobby, national officers of the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters met in my office at Millbank. If those two unions can come together under one roof without falling out with each other, clearly something serious must have happened. They were not discussing wages, or funding the 2.7 per cent.; they knew who was to blame for that. They were more concerned, as professionals, about the damage being done to the education of the children for whom they feel responsible in boroughs such as mine.
The next election cannot come quickly enough for most Opposition Members—although of course the opposite applies to the Conservative party. The Government are planning to give away some money in taxes before the election. That is why money is being withheld from school budgets all over the country—to fund tax cuts. Meanwhile, the Government have done incalculable damage to our education infrastructure and the prospects of many of our children, especially in boroughs such as Sandwell. We shall hang that around their necks, and they will suffer for it at the next election.
7.20 pm
Mr. Richard Alexander: I should like to sound a slightly different note. Although I hold no brief for Labour-controlled Nottinghamshire county council, I must point out that if it had adopted the budget that the Conservatives suggested, things would have been a lot easier. Like many other county councils, our county council must look much more carefully at its overall spending—that message has come through time and again this afternoon. The councils overtime bill for staff, for instance, is £10 million.
We have 20,000 surplus school places in our county: one in four desks is empty. That problem has persisted for many years. If the county did not have those surplus places, we would be able to fund every child by another £250. That is a fundamental point.

1083
I must however suggest to Ministers, who sometimes believe that dealing with surplus places provides the only answer, that it may not. I have followed the advice frequently and rightly given us by the Secretary of State, and have found out what is going on in my local authority. We need to know that, although sometimes it is difficult to find out what is happening. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, with the resources available to his Department, to consider finding out, county by county, where there are inefficiencies and where improvements could be made, so that we can target and make responsible the people who should be far more active in funding our schools.
Here I sound the note of caution which has not thus far been expressed by any other Conservative Member. Ministers will be aware that there is a great deal of disquiet about how schools are to be funded this year—in Conservative as well as in Labour constituencies. I have expressed that concern in correspondence with the Secretary of State on behalf of schools, parents, teachers, and governors. I am sure that colleagues in the House have done the same.
What is not always clear—I hope to have the answer from my right hon. Friend when she replies to me—is what has gone wrong and who is at fault. Still, the anxiety is genuine, and it is non-political. We need to know exactly what funding is going into our schools.
I have corresponded with the director of education on the county council; he has been most helpful, and I have no complaints about how he has informed me of what is going on. He tells me that there has been a reduction in the aggregated schools budget in Nottinghamshire of £11.280 million for 1995–96. That represents almost exactly the equivalent of the amount that I quoted earlier which is paid out in overtime to county council staff.
I can accept a 1.2 per cent. increase this year, tough though it is. What I find more difficult is learning how school after school in my constituency is having trouble balancing its books for the coming year. I offer two examples. Tuxford comprehensive school, a fine, large school, is experiencing a cut of £160,000. That is extremely difficult to live with. It must be very difficult to maintain the schools standards following a cut of that order.
A school at the opposite end of the range, Muskham county primary school, is receiving £6,363 less than it got last year, while taking on five more pupils than it had last year. That brings its pupil numbers up to 138. The head quite properly wants to balance his books—he does not want to get into deficit—but the way he has to do so is worrying. He is cutting down on midday school supervision. His governors tell me that health and safety cover in the playground is minimal and a cause for worry. He is cutting his secretarial assistance to two and a half days a week. In a school of 138 pupils that is clearly ridiculous. He is doing most of his own typing. What a waste of a professional mans time! He is an excellent and experienced teacher, and this should not be happening.
Something has clearly gone wrong, and teachers, parents and governors tell us that it is our fault. So the time may have come for Ministers to look more closely at how schools are funded this year and at the effects of the cuts on education, school by school. This has gone beyond being a political matter. It is an education matter now.
1084
It is quite true that the county council is guilty of inefficiency. In theory, the regime can be rejected at the next local elections, but that is of little comfort to parents and schools now.
Mr. Hawkins rose—
Mr. Alexander: I am sorry, I have only three minutes left.
There is some mileage in the argument that the county has surplus school places. This afternoon, I took a deputation to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools to discuss the amalgamation of schools—not to object to it, but to make certain improving suggestions. Of course, until those amalgamations are approved and take place, the surplus places will not be available for savings for the county. Although we have far too many surplus school places, it is not always easy to wipe them out at a stroke and thereby to save money this year.
I also took up with the director of education the amount of school balances in the county. Interestingly, of the nearly £15 million of balances in the schools, 37 per cent. in primary schools and 43 per cent. in secondary schools is being used to pay for the schools survival this year. So we are right to point out that there are school balances that can be used, but sometimes we need to look more closely and see whether they are just floating about unused or whether they are allocated and unavailable. I am informed by the director that 77 per cent. of primary balances and 84 per cent. of secondary balances are specifically earmarked. If a school has no balances, it is not terribly satisfactory to be told that there are balances somewhere else. School by school, there is not a great deal of fat that can be used.
For those reasons, I support the Government. I believe that there are savings that our county councils can make, but I want to alert my hon. Friend to the situation in many schools, particularly in my constituency.
7.30 pm
Ms Margaret Hodge: I must tell the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) that education essentially is a political matter. The Government have had 16 years to show the nation, parents, employers and children that they can be trusted on education, that they can be trusted to deliver excellence and high standards for all our children.
Todays debate is an opportunity to judge the record of the Government. It is a record that shows an unforgivable betrayal of trust, a betrayal which some Conservative Members will try to hide by being economical with the truth, but a betrayal that is felt by thousands of men and women, boys and girls in communities, families and industries the length and breadth of the country.
Let us examine the record on what counts—whether enough money has been invested in the most effective way to achieve the appropriate outcomes for our children, and they are our children. Too few hon. Members who occupy the Conservative Benches trust the system for which they are responsible. Too few of them use state schools for their own children, and that indictment speaks for itself.
So what is the record? I am not thinking here of those at the top of the pile, who are likely to succeed whatever the state of our schools. My concern is for those from less-privileged backgrounds, who will be able to fulfil

1085
their potential only if we ensure that they have the opportunity of well-resourced and rigorous schooling. It is for them in particular that we need proper investment in education. We know that schools do make a difference. All the many studies tell us that. It is therefore the overwhelming duty of Government to ensure effective policies and well-resourced schools, so that our schools can make a difference for all our children.
The Prime Minister himself accepted that it is the job of Government to tackle inequality. Nowhere is that more important than in education, yet the Prime Ministers deeds belie his words. That will never be the case for Labour in government. We intend to tackle inequality, and for that reason, education is our passion.
So let us look at the record. It is a national scandal that one in three of our seven-year-olds fails to reach the Governments set standard in handwriting. A similar number fail in spelling, and almost one in four fails to reach the grade in arithmetic. It is not good enough to say two out of three succeed. The reality is that one in three fails. Yet the Government have so under-resourced primary schools that 1 million children are being taught in classes of more than 30. Think of it. Hon. Members should imagine themselves in the place of a teacher of five and six-year-olds, with 30 children. It would take that person five hours a day to hear each child read. If one cannot hear them read, how can one expect them to reach the required standard of reading? Of course class size counts, especially at the primary level, and that is why the financial settlement is wrong.
Furthermore, we know that an effective school depends on effective leadership—a first-class head. Yet reports earlier this year showed that governing bodies were finding it increasingly difficult to recruit head teachers. In London, three in 10 headships were not filled at the first attempt in 1994. In primary schools, the number of vacancies nationwide rose from 1,509 in 1993 to 1,790 in 1994. Why? One reason is that we simply do not value and pay primary head teachers enough. Secondly, we do not invest sufficiently and effectively in head teacher training. We get what we pay for, and that is often not good enough for our children.
Again, the Government ignore the evidence. How a child performs at seven is one of the greatest influences on GCSE scores. Extensive research by the Institute of Education shows that nearly 25 per cent. of the variation in GCSE scores was accounted for by performance at age seven. The Governments failure to resource our primary schools properly betrays our children. At the age of seven, they begin to fail. By 14, the results are worse. One in three cannot master basic English, maths and science. That national failure places the country at the bottom of the league table of advanced industrial countries.
Taking the most recent set of comparable statistics, only 27 per cent.—just over one in four—of 16-year-olds secured GCSE passes in maths, English and a science in 1990–91. That compares with 66 per cent.—two out of three—in France, 62 per cent. in Germany and 50 per cent. in Japan. At A-level, the figures are 80 per cent. in Japan, 68 per cent. in Germany and 48 per cent. in France, yet just 29 per cent. in England.
What an indictment of our education service. Why is that happening? Because the Government have focused their resources on those who are most likely to succeed anyway, not on those who most need support. We should not be
1086
surprised. They are a Government who reward the rich and punish the poor. They have done so in tax. They have done so on wages and they are doing so in education.
The Government tell the nation that they believe in choice for parents. Yet in practice their policy does not deliver that choice. By focusing on the few, not on the many, they are creating oversubscribed schools, which, in turn, become more and more selective, so that the schools are choosing the parents, rather than the parents choosing the schools. That is why appeals by parents for places in their chosen school have increased by a staggering 420 per cent. in four years. The way to increase choice is to improve quality, not just in a few centres of excellence but in all our schools for all our children.
Our schools are in crisis. The Secretary of State knows that, but she cannot admit it publicly. Nobody out there believes the Governments figures. It is a classic case of lies, damned lies and statistics. Out there in the schools, they know the truth. Parents know, governors know, teachers know. Tory councillors—admittedly a rare breed these days—know that their Government are letting us down. The Governments formula for the standard spending assessment for education is woefully inadequate. In my borough of Barking and Dagenham, the Government use 1991 figures to calculate the number of children entitled to free school meals. In fact, poverty has increased since then, mostly as a direct result of the Governments policy, so the council is losing around £1 million, which it could have spent on educating children in the classroom.
I now address another crucial point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, it was 1972 when Baroness Thatcher, then Secretary of State for Education, said in her White Paper that, within the following 10 years
nursery education should become available without charge, to those children of three or four whose parents wish them to benefit from it.
The Prime Minister, at the Conservative party conference last year, placed great emphasis on the importance of nursery education. Although his was a lesser pledge, the speech was welcomed as a step forward.
Since then, we have heard much but seen nothing. Sheila Lawlor, the architect of many of the Governments disastrous education reforms, has been pushing for vouchers because she is so hostile to publicly funded and publicly provided nursery education. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has put in his oar and has shown up yet more divisions in the Government ranks by suggesting a beauty contest between competing providers. There has been reference to a leaked letter from the Secretary of State to her Conservative colleagues. Is that yet another example of the Government breaking their promises?
The evidence that the availability of services for under-fives gives children a head start in life is overwhelming. A recent study in Wandsworth showed that children will benefit.
Sixteen years of Conservative education has failed our children. The latest round of education cuts has awakened middle England. Most governors, teachers, parents and children know that. We look forward to an early opportunity to implement our- policy in government.
7.40 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: I am not prepared to take any lectures from the hon. Member for

1087
Barking (Ms Hodge). I spent 23 years teaching in comprehensive schools and in adult education and my three children attended state schools. That is characteristic of my hon. Friends and it is wrong of the hon. Lady to try to say that the reverse is the case. She has a great deal to answer for. She presided over the borough of Islington which demoralised excellent schools, such as Highbury Grove, by disgraceful and unsatisfactory appointments of heads and teachers. Such was the extent of it that the leader of her party will not use any school in that borough. What sort of tribute to the hon. Lady is that? What did she do for children? She did nothing but put them down the drain. For her to deliver such a sanctimonious speech is totally unacceptable and absolute nonsense. It convinces no one, and I am sure that it will not convince any of her electors or anyone in her party.
Labour has no ideas for education. It simply suggests that we must go back to what it attempted to give the country when it was in government. There has been no new thinking at all, and that is serious. If I were a Labour party supporter I would be terribly worried. The party has no dynamism on what is perhaps our most important subject for debate. It produces nothing except grumbles. But what is happening in education is important and valuable and it is a tribute to the Government.
There are many more nursery places than ever before and, as I said in an intervention during the speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), a former leader of the Labour party came to my constituency and promised a nursery place for every child if Labour won the local election, which it did. That deceit helped the party to victory and it now resolutely refuses to implement that pledge. I was at well-attended public meetings of parents who demanded that Labour implement its promise. But it will not, and the party will pay heavily for that because parents know that they have been sold a pup and deceived.
Willow Tree primary school has a great need for expanded nursery school education, but it has not got that. Wood End infants grant-maintained school also wants to expand nursery education. It has the room and has everything in place, but the local council will not allow it. Compared with the record of its predecessor Conservative council, which put in no fewer than 400 new nursery places during its term of office at a cost of £1 million, that is a pretty dismal performance and Labour will answer for that as for so much else.
There is no point in the Labour party spokesman talking to the heads of grant-maintained schools, as he did last week, because they report to me. All but one secondary school in my constituency are grant-maintained. In some instances the parents, governors and head teachers achieved that status against bitter opposition by the Labour party. On one occasion not only the education committee chairman, Hilary Benn, but the deputy chairman of education and the education officer and deputy education officer in Ealing opposed grant-maintained status.
The parents could not have been more pressurised not to go grant-maintained. Every attempt was made to intimidate them. On my recommendation, a former leader of the Labour party, Mr. Neil Kinnock, had sent his daughter and son to that school in my constituency. I am glad that he did because they have both done well. That is a tribute to them and, in a way, to him. That school had
1088
to work hard to become grant-maintained and it will not give up that status. It will not be cheated out of it by weasel words such as, We will try to find some way to work with grant-maintained schools. The school is determined to retain its independence and the Labour party had better understand that.
The value of the school maintaining its independence is that it does so well. The parents support the school, which is oversubscribed. Maintenance is of a standard that has not been seen before. As I have said before in the House, Northholt grant-maintained high school saved £70,000 on cleaning by cutting out the cleaning services of the local authority. I can tell the hon. Member for Barking and everybody else that that money is used to buy books, pencils, rubbers and teachers. That is the advantage of such a saving. The hon. Member for Barking shakes her head, but how does she know? I can tell her that that is the truth. That is what parents want and it is what they will have.
Labour is already giving out the jobs that will follow the next general election. It has another think coming. Labour has done that four times in a row and is doing it again, but it will have a big surprise. Opposition Members have convinced themselves as never before that they will win the election but they will not because Labour has nothing to offer people and people know that.
As we have heard, spending on education has increased by 50 per cent. since 1979. Is not it a great tribute to our Government and to the people and children of this land that one child in three goes on to higher education compared with one in eight formerly? If that is not a tribute to every level of education and to dedicated work by teachers I do not know what is. It is not as if there are high failure rates. Students going into higher education achieve good degrees and there are very few drop-outs. That statistic speaks for itself.
I could say much more. Britain now spends more on education than on defence. For many years Labour said that we had our values wrong because we spent more on defence than on education. It did not care about the fact that there could be no education if the land was not defended and was overrun or demoralised. Labour Members made much of that moral argument, as they called it. Now that the balance is so greatly changed it is right to draw attention to it. It is right that the balance should be in favour of education because that is where the future of the country lies. At £28 billion a year, our spending on education is high and compares with that of any other country.
I must mention my constituency. In Ealing the local council has £17 million in reserve so there is no excuse for selling schools short. I question the figures that Labour puts about. A few days ago I went into a primary school and the chairman of the governors, who is a Labour party supporter and a former councillor, said to me, Harry, there will be a shortfall of £45,000 on the school budget. That will mean two teachers going and I shall make sure that the parents know that it is your Government who have done it. I said, What is the pay budget? What is the cost of teachers this year? The head teacher got the figures out. The cost was £302,000 for the year. I said that the award was 2.7 per cent., and that that did not tome to £45,000. We do not always hear the right and honest figure. Every time a figure is thrown around, we should quote the true figure, question the first figure, and find out whether it is right or wrong and what the true facts are. We shall find that, for political purposes, there is quite a lot of misrepresentation of figures.

1089
In my professional life in schools, I always stood for high standards in work, attendance and behaviour. Over many years, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and I worked together to that end. High standards of work, attendance and behaviour are the policies of the Conservative party and the Government. With such policies, we stand by children in the way that we must for their future achievement.
7.50 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: This years education budgets have left teachers, parents and governors bewildered and angry. They are even more perplexed by the attempt of the Secretary of State for Education to pretend that that is somehow the fault of local education authorities, but parents are not so easily fooled. They know who to blame and why that has happened.
Governors and parents are fully aware that the Government are cutting public expenditure so that they can make Budget tax cuts next year in time for a feel-good factor before the general election. People are angry that their children are being made to suffer for cheap political expediency. On this occasion, the Secretary of State and her friends in the Cabinet will find that they have made the worst mistake of their political lives.
Let us consider what has happened in the Secretary of States own county of Norfolk. She says that spending on schools there has increased, but the standard spending assessment per secondary school pupil in Norfolk is £100 less than it was in 1992–93. I wonder if she thinks that she can disguise that as an increase in spending. The Norfolk education budget has had a cut of £3.3 million. The local authority has chosen to cut discretionary awards, community education, adult education and school meals.
What about the next-door county of Cambridgeshire, in which the Prime Minister and I have our constituencies? In Cambridgeshire, the SSA per secondary school pupil is £64 less than it was in 1992–93. It is difficult to disguise that as an increase in spending. The education budget is being cut by £4 million in Cambridgeshire. Even that is not as bad as was originally feared, because the county has taken £7 million out of county budget reserves, which were put aside for a rainy day. It is a rainy day today, and the trouble is that, if it continues to rain next year and the year after, nothing will be left in the reserves to bail out the countys budget—and schools are looking to make a £10 million cut in 1996–97.
The education committee in Cambridgeshire has had to consider cuts in a number of sectors. They have included the community education service, in which Cambridgeshire once had a proud record, charging for school transport, and changing arrangements for admission for the rising fives. Presumably, that has resulted from pressure from Conservative Members of Parliament in the county, who have had their statutory letter from the Secretary of State urging that schooling for under-fives should be one of the sectors to be cut.
The Secretary of State has said that councils are capable of putting more money into education if they choose to do so, but that they do not choose to do so. In Cambridgeshire, we have always spent well above the SSA on education. Even when the county council inherited the budget from Conservative control in 1993–94, spending on education was 4.1 per cent. above the SSA. Education spending in 1994–95 was 6.1 per cent. above the SSA and it is predicted
1090
that in 1995–96 it will be 6.6 per cent. above SSA. That is not without pain. Education spending increases mean cuts elsewhere. The county council has already had to make some difficult and painful decisions.
Let us consider another of the Secretary of States statements. She said:
Too much money is kept back by the Education Department for central costs. A recent Audit Commission report showed that local authorities could make efficiency savings of £500 million.
In Cambridgeshire, this years spending on administration per pupil is £34.55. The county average is £43.47, so Cambridgeshire is spending 20 per cent. less on administration than the county average.
The other extraordinary statement made by the Prime Minister was that there are two administrators for every three teachers. In Cambridgeshire, there are 10 teachers for every administrator. If we take cleaners and caretakers out of the definition of an administrator, the ratio of teachers to administrators is more than 20 to one. I wonder where the Prime Minister obtained those extraordinary figures. Is he still sticking by them? They sound as if they came out of some random number generator.
What do parents and governors think? I have had more than 400 letters about education service cuts and it is difficult to find anyone who believes that the county council is to blame. All of them know that the Government are imposing the cuts. I am surprised not to see some of the right hon. and hon. Members who represent Cambridgeshire constituencies in the Chamber. At least one of them has been outspoken about the cuts, particularly when speaking to my local newspaper, the Cambridge Evening News. I wonder why he is not here tonight to express some of those views so that Ministers with responsibility for education can hear them.
In my brief visit on Monday to a special school, the Rees Thomas school for children with severe learning difficulties, I saw some excellent work by dedicated staff, some worrying deterioration in playground furniture—which is due to be condemned by health and safety officials next year—and overcrowding that severely restricts education opportunities for those children. Two of the governors invited me to visit the school so that I could see for myself the difficulties that it is working under even before further cuts are imposed.
A letter on behalf of one of the secondary schools in my constituency states that staffing will be cut from 32.7 to 30.4. It says that that will mean that some classes will increase from 24 to 30 pupils. One of the parents from that school wrote to me:
Good education is not cheap. But the results of an inadequate education system are too costly to contemplate.
Another person writes that she would rather education standards were maintained than have one or two pennies off her income tax. I know that that view is widely shared in my constituency.
Another school that wrote to me is one of the few ecumenical schools in my part of the world. I remember that the school was threatened with closure in the mid-1980s. Since then, it has made great efforts. Its standards are now excellent and it has a strong parental following. One of the reasons why people are able and choose to send their children there is that the county council promised that it would provide children with free transport to that school. That promise has had to

1091
be broken. The county council is having to impose a charge of £25 per term for each pupil travelling to that school. The schools very existence depends on pupils travelling from a distance. I fear that the only children who will be able to attend that school in future will be those whose family have money or who live nearby.
I finish by quoting from a letter that I received from Cambridge and district chamber of commerce and industry. It points out that the southern part of the county may lose 75 teaching posts and states that industry and commerce depend on a well-trained work force and are afraid that it will not he possible to maintain proper standards because of the freezing of money spent on education and because of the failure to fund the teachers pay increase. Those people would not complain about education cuts if they did not believe that education in the county was in crisis. I urge Ministers to listen carefully to what is being said by such people because we are talking about the future of our nation and of our country.
8 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: The Labour motion refers to
the threat to standards, opportunity and achievement,
yet nothing has been said or done by the Labour party in the House or in the country to contribute ideas that would lead to the raising of standards, an increase in opportunities and the full recognition of achievement. Nor do I believe that Labour supporters in control of local authorities in areas such as Kent—and Kent in particular—have any other agenda than the policies of the 1960s.
This education debate, like so many others, shows the state of intellectual honesty in the Labour party today. Principles have been hidden and commitments fudged because nothing must be said or done unless it is to the benefit of the Labour party. Wheeling, dealing, dodging and downright deceit have always been the posture of the Liberal Democrats, but it is only in the past two years that we have begun to realise that they are also the stance of the Labour party. It is very sad that a once great party should descend to the level of the Liberal Democrats in the way that it chooses not to present its policies as it should. The Labour party is revealing not its intellectual honesty but its intellectual dishonesty.
A few days ago, the Leader of the Opposition said, I have a passion for education, for order, for law, for cold water and for apple pie. The trouble is that no one knows precisely what that means. Of course, it is evidence of the soundbite mania of the spin doctors who have now been Mandelised into the Labour party, that the Leader of the Opposition is having to say that he has a passion for this and for that—it does not matter for what, as long as it wins votes. Labour is being told to forget its principles; winning is all that matters. There is no longer any intellectual honesty in the Labour party.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) has shown great interest in the county of Kent. I welcome that because whenever left wingers from Liverpool come to Kent our majorities shoot up even higher than they were. However, the hon. Gentleman has taken an interest, and we are having a real debate.
1092
Like his colleagues, the hon. Gentleman will have to learn that to find the true voice of the Labour party in Kent one needs to speak to those who control the county council, who wish to abolish grammar schools, take back grant-maintained status from schools, close the city technology college and do away with all that we have done. That is the true voice of the Stalinist Labour party, as I have known it all my life.
Tonight we need from the hon. Member for Walton some account of the row taking place between his team and the Leader of the Opposition. I would love to know what is happening because, clearly, there is no great joy or happiness but, rather, a darkness, between them. Indeed, we know that that is the case elsewhere. There is a darkness between the Leader of the Opposition and his spokespersons in the health team and, of course, there is absolute, total blackness between the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader. Perhaps we can look forward to a bit of excitement from the Labour spokesman tonight. I say, Give us the beef. Tell us the truth about what is happening in the Labour party, and let us see whether John Humphrys uses it on the Today programme tomorrow.
The House knows that I have been a strong advocate for schools in my constituency for as long as I have been a Member of Parliament. There are nine grant-maintained schools in Dartford—the Dartford grammar school for boys; the Dartford grammar schools for girls; the Wilmington grammar school for boys; the grammar school for girls, Wilmington; the Horton Kirby primary school; the Sutton-at-Hone primary school; Wilmington primary school; the Holy Trinity Church of England primary school; and Our Lady Roman Catholic school in Hartley.
All of those schools have taken advantage of the opportunity to break free from the bureaucracy of local authorities. We also have a city technology college in Dartford, so we have a real choice which the Labour party would destroy. There are 60,000 children educated in grant-maintained schools in the county of Kent. I warn those 60,000 children and their 60,000 families—many hundreds of thousands of voters—to watch out because Labour will destroy their schools.
We have to read the press to find out what Labour party policy is, inasmuch as the Labour party knows what it is or inasmuch as its spokespersons are allowed to reveal it. On 19 March, Andrew Grice wrote an article in The Sunday Times with the headline, Labour Pledge to ballot parents on handing back of opt-out schools. The small print states:
Schools that vote against returning to town hall control, however, will not be permitted to operate in isolation from their community; some governors would be appointed by the local authority.
In other words, a school can have democracy—it can stay in local authority control or vote to opt out—but, if it does not vote to come back in, Labour will put a majority of governors on the governing body to ensure that it does.
That is the lesson of Liverpool and inner London in the 1970s and 1980s. Labour will appoint a majority of governors on the governing body and intimidate the head, the teachers and the parents and force the school back into LEA control because that is Labours wish. Labour wants nothing but the comprehensive system. That is what Labour is about.

1093
It is a strange phenomenon but I feel that, at long last, we are having a dialogue—at least I am having one with myself—on what the Labour party believes. I like the hon. Member for Walton, who, is a nice chap. I am sure that he is—anyone who takes on the Militants in Liverpool cannot be wholly bad.
I want Labours policy spelt out. It is an act of gross dishonesty not to reveal the truth. Under Labour, parents would see their schools going back into LEA control. They have to be told by the Conservatives what Labour will do. Labour would bring in the thought police and get them on the governing bodies of schools and, by hook or by crook, by intimidation, threat and sheer pressure from the organised vested interests in our communities, bring schools back into local authority control. That would be a monstrous thing to do.
I expect the hon. Member for Waltons winding-up speech to be brief so I hope that he will explain to me in writing something that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said today. He said that Kent had spent £9 million on a nursery voucher experiment. I think that the hon. Member for Walton is nodding, or else he has a nervous tick. In any event, he is indicating that I am right.
I have checked with the county council. There was an experiment that was financed and surveyed but not put in place. Had the county council put it in place in Ashford, the cost would have been £1.2 million but, as it was not put in place, the cost was not £9 million, nor was it £1.2 million. May we have an apology today, or later in writing?
I believe that the Government are going to make great strides with this policy. People like it and want it and do not want it taken away. If the Labour party wishes to protect its own interests, it should start to side with grant-maintained schools, the parents and governors. I hope that, in time, the Conservative party will decide that all schools should be grant-maintained. Let us have done with the dead hand of local authorities and the dead hand of Stalinism that exists in Kent and Liverpool.
I hope that the hon. Member for Walton will explain to the House in words of one syllable, so that even in Liverpool they can understand what he is saying, why Liverpool has domestic rates arrears of £23 million, community charge arrears of £68 million and council tax arrears of £10.7 million. That is the missing money; that is where the problem lies. It lies with the Labour party and with those in local government who support it and we must have none of it.
8.9 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: It is a great pleasure to follow the voice of—to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)—a once great party, with its £15 million overdraft, its disappearing membership and its universally reviled policies. It is very nice to hear the hon. Gentleman talking about Stalinists in Kent—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And Liverpool.
Mr. Pickthall: No, he did not mention Liverpool.
The Government have a simple purpose behind the cuts that they are inflicting on education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) explained. Our school and college students are to pay for the core of
1094
the Governments next election campaign: income tax cuts. All their efforts are now bent on shifting the blame to local education authorities. They will use every statistical lie and every myth that they conjure to that end. Their efforts are not succeeding and their sheer desperation has been indicated by the Secretary of States decision to encourage her Back Benchers to give the black spot to nursery spending. Tory Back Benchers seem wisely to avoid being seen doing that. Indeed, they are usually at the front of the queue, demanding more nursery provision from their LEAs for their constituents; and who can blame them.
The basic figures which explain what is happening are clear enough. I shall, of course, use Lancashire as my example. Lancashires education standard spending assessment for next year is £484 million—£37.6 million less than it spent last year. Lancashires SSA per secondary pupil is £133 less than it was in 1992–93.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Surplus places.
Mr. Pickthall: I shall come to surplus places. Such reductions cannot be sustained without pain and disruption and, probably, without sackings.
Lancashire is one of the four biggest shires in the country in terms of population, but it is the only one of those four which does not benefit from the area cost adjustment. For example, in Essex, the SSA per secondary pupil is £2,755, plus a few pence. In Lancashire, the SSA per secondary pupil is £2,610. So a secondary pupil in Essex is deemed to be worth £145 more than a pupil in Lancashire.
Within that comparison, weighting for free school meals in Essex is £42.62, while in Lancashire it is £45.67. Weighting for the additional educational needs index in Essex is £353.13 and in Lancashire it is £428.04. But for the ACA, Lancashire would have an SSA per secondary pupil £75 higher than Essex. Similar comparisons can be made with the primary figures and between Lancashire and Kent and Lancashire and Hampshire, the other two counties of similar proportions.
It has always been recognised by all hon. Members that Londons needs are special and that the ACA should account for them, but it is unacceptable to those outside the south-east that the counties surrounding the capital should benefit equally from that adjustment. Twelve of the 13 counties with the highest SSA per pupil benefit from the area cost adjustment. In no way do I suggest that Kent, Essex and Hampshire should have their funding cut, but how on earth can counties outside the south-east provide the same service to pupils and achieve the same results in league tables, across the board, with such resource differentials? I am astonished that more Conservatives who represent constituencies in the midlands, the north of England and the far west are not up in arms regularly about it.
The result for Lancashire of all the proposals is a 5.5 per cent. cut in school budgets. The blow falls especially heavily on those schools with a settled and stable work force where teachers are at the top of their scales. Visiting St. Thomas the Martyr primary school in Up Holland in my constituency last week, a first-class school with an excellent reputation, I encountered just such a school. It will have to lose the equivalent of 1.5 staff. A member of the staff told me bitterly:
We are an expensive staff so we have to be clobbered.

1095
It seems that this time the Government cannot pass off the viciousness of their cuts by picking on a handful of LEAs that they most dislike to pour on them their vilification. Almost all local authorities and their citizens are up in arms. Even among those lobbying the House on Tuesday last week, I came across a large contingent from Buckinghamshire, the last of the Tory shires.
Moreover, parents and governors know where the blame lies. I have had hundreds of letters, as I assume have all hon. Members, but not one of them blames a local education authority. Some of them, I have to say, blame me because I have not stopped the Government. They think that I can do that. Indeed, the letters have included all sorts of suggestions, from talking nicely to the Prime Minister, who will obviously understand and change his mind, to knee-capping various members of the Cabinet. Gently, I have to tell the parents and governors that neither method is likely to work.
Many desperate myths are being perpetrated to justify what the Government are doing. In some parts of Lancashire, the Tories are encouraging schools and governors to go for grant-maintained status so that they can secure additional funding to get round the cuts. That is an absolute fabrication. Grant-maintained status can do nothing for those schools about the cuts that the Government are now instituting, however legitimate the discussions. The funding formula will still apply.
Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pickthall: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Member, who has flitted in and out of the debate like Marleys ghost and expects to intervene all the time.
We are told that the Government have increased spending on Lancashire education by 1.4 per cent., but they have also told Lancashire that it cannot increase spending by more than 0.5 per cent. The education share of that increase is £2.7 million, but an increase of more than £30 million is needed to meet existing commitments—for a standstill budget. That £2.7 million would not even cover the increased number of pupils coming on stream in 1995–96: an increase of 1.5 per cent.
The Governments extra funding of 1.4 per cent., in itself only a tiny part of what is needed, must be put alongside the 0.5 per cent. limit on spending. So, 1.1 per cent. may be used only to reduce the increase in the council tax; it cannot be used for schools. It has been said that Lancashire has reserves to deal with the problems. Some absurd figures have been put forward by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). I notice that she did not refer to them today so she has probably now read the proper material. From £33 million in schools reserves, much is being spent now and most is committed to development projects.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pickthall: No I shall not give way, I have only about 30 seconds left. The LEA—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pickthall: No. The LEA has no control over those resources. Local management of schools encourages independent control by governors over those funds.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I hope that it is a point of order for the Chair.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is a point of order. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) is deliberately misleading the House. I am not—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a not a point of order and the hon. Lady, with all her experience, well knows it.
Mr. Pickthall: The county balance at the moment stands—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must withdraw the words deliberately misleading the House.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I withdraw the word deliberately, but I shall say that the hon. Gentleman is unintentionally and entirely misinforming the House.
Mr. Pickthall: The hon. Lady knows all about being misinformed, I am sure. The county balance stands at £9 million—the minimum that the county treasury will allow as an appropriate level, having regard to the councils legal duty to set a balanced budget.
Stories are also being put around about the amount being spent on central services. I do not have any time to go through all the figures—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Pickthall: Perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster would like to take them up with me in detail, at some other time.
Central administration costs in Lancashire stand at 3 per cent.—right at the bottom section of the county league table. And if we look properly at how the funding is divided between teachers and administrators, we see that the ratio of staff providing direct services to schools and teachers is 1:74.7, not 1:17, as the hon. Member for Lancaster said—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
8.19 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to be called in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was beginning to wonder whether there was something wrong with the annunciator, because there are only three Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber for what we are told is such an important debate. [HoN. MEMBERS: Where are they?] Ah, here comes another one—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
The Government have been radical in their education policy, and I greatly welcome the diversity that has been introduced into the state education system. We have introduced the national curriculum, grant-maintained schools and local management of schools. The Labour party bitterly opposed each of those policies. Our radical approach to education is wholly to our credit. All that the Labour party has ever been is the mouthpiece of the National Union of Teachers and the education establishment, and Labour Members prove that time and time again.
Yesterday I asked the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), a question about spending in Derbyshire schools in 1994–95

1097
prices. In 1978–79—I do not think that we were responsible for that budget—spending in primary schools was £1,064 per head; in 1993–94 it was £1,632 per head. That shows our true commitment to education, because over a long period there has been a substantial and consistent increase. That is most important.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister, however, that we have to find a way of getting the figures over to the public and explaining to them what is being spent on the education budget. The trouble is that the explanations are so confusing, what with standard spending assessments, general schools budgets, potential schools budgets and aggregated schools budgets. How on earth is anybody supposed to get to the bottom of what is going on in school funding with all those variations?
Derbyshire county council has excelled itself in efficiency. One would not often hear me praise that authority. But last week I asked the Secretary of State a question in which I pointed out that there were about 17,000 surplus places in Derbyshire. Unfortunately, I was wrong; there are more than 20,000. However, within 12 hours of my saying that the chairman of the education committee put out a press release showing where all the surplus places were in west Derbyshire. He did not cover the rest of the county, just west Derbyshire. I wrote back to him saying that his response had been very good and efficient, and that perhaps he could let me have the figures for the whole county within the next 48 hours. We are now 28 hours on, and I am still counting.
The facts about overall spending levels are important. At the end of the day it is difficult to work out the true facts and statistics. Derbyshire county council consistently talks about standard spending assessments and says that it would like the same SSA as Surrey. But when I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), he told me that Derbyshires SSA per head of population was £549, whereas in Surrey the figure is £524. If my county council really wants the same SSA as Surrey, it is calling for a reduction. We should judge the whole area of local authority spending rather than specific individual figures.
I note that these days Labour Front-Bench spokesmen pay great attention to the Library, regarding its staff as independent statisticians who will give us the true figures. Well, the Library has done some research for me, and yesterday we were told that in 1994–95 Derbyshire local education authority spent £720 per pupil in addition to the sums delegated to each school. That figure compares with £570 in Nottinghamshire and £550 in Staffordshire. In other words, Derbyshire spends an extra £150. If that money were going directly into schools, we would be talking not about reductions but about substantial increases.
Perhaps it is time that we thought about having a national funding formula, designated by the Government, for all schoolchildren throughout the country. As things are the Government get all the blame, but we do not have the responsibility. So let us take the responsibility and cut out the local education authorities. I believe that there is much inefficiency in LEAs, and it is difficult to get to the bottom of their budgets.
I also asked a parliamentary question about subsidies for school meals in Derbyshire. Today I received an answer from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State telling me that the income for Derbyshires school catering service was £9,051 million whereas expenditure on the service amounts to £22,959 million. There is
1098
therefore a subsidy, or a discrepancy—I do not know what the Labour party likes to call it—of £13,900 million on school meals. If the county wishes to pay such a subsidy, that is a policy decision that it is entitled to take. But the fact is that one cannot spend money in two places. The county cannot subsidise school meals and spend a huge amount on central administration, and then complain that it has not the money to delegate to schools. That is an important point, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to deal with some of those issues. I was encouraged by a story that I read on the front page of The Times Educational Supplement at the weekend suggesting that the Government might be considering a national funding formula. I do not expect my hon. Friend to comment on speculation in the papers, but may I tell him that if the Government are considering such a policy I should wholeheartedly endorse it? The sooner it is adopted the better.
I also have something to say about grant-maintained schools. I have a letter here from Michael Collier, the chief executive of the Funding Agency for Schools, and I am concerned about the way in which GM schools are notified of their budgets. The education budget is announced by the Chancellor in November, and local authorities hear about their budgets from the Secretary of State shortly after that.
However, in the letter Mr. Collier writes:
It is anticipated that the Final Annual Maintenance Grant will be issued in early May.
That is six weeks into the new financial year. I do not think that it is a fair way to treat large secondary schools with big budgets, or indeed primary schools, if they do not find out what their final budgets are to be until the year has started. That is an important problem which needs to be dealt with.
There is no question in my mind but that local authorities could find the money for this years pay increases. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that although one can get away with a pay freeze for one or two years, it is not possible to do so beyond that point. I hope that when discussions take place on next years spending round that thought will be at the forefront.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) said that he would like every school to become grant-maintained. I should like every school not only to become grant-maintained but to know, by means of a national funding formula, what its budget will be. At the moment there are too many dark holes through which money can be filtered away by local education authorities, and even some grant-maintained schools do not get the right amounts of money. I believe that we as a party and as a Government have a good reputation in education. We have changed the whole education system by diversifying and providing choice in the state system, and that is something to which the Labour party is totally opposed. It wants to bring everyone down to the same level, but we want to allow people to excel in state education—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
8.29 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: It is convenient for me to follow the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who represents a neighbouring constituency to mine, as I can refer to some of his arguments.

1099
One argument that the hon. Gentleman used—it has also been used by the Prime Minister and by other Conservative Members—was to compare the level of expenditure on education in 1978–79 with the current level of expenditure. That is a considerable period, and an analysis of what has happened within education cannot just be made with such a broad-brush approach. Some consideration must be given to what has happened in the past five years—particularly in Derbyshire—as that would show a different pattern.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire stressed various issues such as surplus places. One of his solutions to the current crisis in Derbyshire is school closures and amalgamations, which he believes would solve a great problem within the vast rural areas of west Derbyshire. The hon. Gentleman also wishes to cut out the role of the local education authority. Unfortunately, the role of the LEA has just about been cut out altogether by the present financial arrangements. Because of the Governments policy, LEAs have virtually no options as to the policies that they can adopt. I assume that that call by the hon. Gentleman is a reflection of his lack of success in trying to get rid of Derbyshire county council and follows the arguments about boundary changes that he has been notably unsuccessful in pursuing.
Another matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman was price increases for school meals, but I suspect that he really means cutting out the school meals provision. Following assault upon assault by the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members from the county, Derbyshire increased the price of school meals. Following that decision, the take-up of school meals was not what it had been. To argue that school meals should not be a part of education provision seems to me to be entirely inadequate, so we can dismiss the arguments of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire.
Before the hon. Gentleman incensed me, I had initially planned to apologise to the House for not being in the Chamber for the entire debate. This was because of the subject matter that we are discussing today. There has been a mass lobby from Derbyshire at the House of Commons, which has included teachers, pupils, parents and governors.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): They should have been in school.
Mr. Barnes: Those people are in school on many occasions. They are concerned about the major problems and they are here to represent their views. They have important points to make to which the Minister—instead of lecturing them—should listen. Many petitions and letters were presented to me concerning north-east Derbyshire, and other activities took place. The number who came here today—a limited number compared with the numbers who are incensed by what is taking place—presented their petitions, which will see the light of day in the House quite soon.
The Governments policy is to divide and rule, and they hope that a squabble will take place in areas such as Derbyshire about who gets what. Our policy is to unite and fight, and that is seen as important by some angry teachers, pupils, parents and governors. Thanks to Government policy, those governors have begun to
1100
understand the financing arrangements in schools. Local management of schools has turned governors and head teachers into accountants so that those in charge are no longer bemused by some of the arrangements, and they have begun to understand the problems.
In 1988, I asked the then Prime Minister—now Lady Thatcher—to compliment Derbyshire county council on its teacher-pupil ratio. Derbyshire had the best ratio in special education and in secondary education, and in primary education it was second to Nottinghamshire. Since then, we have had cuts in real terms in the budgets of £152 million. Some £54 million of that has been in education, with £28 million being cut this year.
Those figures tie in with the development of changes in the structure of local government finance following the legislation which introduced the poll tax. Although the poll tax has changed into the council tax, the structure of the business rate and other arrangements which were determined then and the technique for the standard spending assessment—which gets bashed about in this House considerably and correctly—came within that area. Compared with Hertfordshire, Derbyshire is £90 million behind the level it had at that time; its SSA initially was very similar to that of Hertfordshire.
When addressing the governors at Holmgate school in Clay Cross, I attempted to explain the methodology of the SSA. One teacher said that he never knew that there was a formula for the SSA, and that he assumed that things were so bad in Derbyshire that the figures were just plucked out of the air. There has to be a formula as far as the law is concerned, but it is a fiddled formula.
The education spend this year is down in real terms, and the maldistribution which occurs within that is more serious. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire may have picked up some points about that maldistribution, as he has criticised the area cost adjustment in the House in the past.
Yesterday, I asked the current Prime Minister about the situation, but I could no longer ask him to compliment Derbyshire on its student-teacher ratio. I had to ask him how he could expect teachers not to be sacked and classes not to be increased in size following the cuts. I asked whether he agreed that education generally could be destroyed because the very fabric of our schools is facing problems. There was no answer. He simply said what the hon. Member for West Derbyshire said in his speech, which was that we should compare 1978–79 expenditure with current expenditure. The Tories think that that is the answer to every problem in the universe and that we need think about nothing else. But there are many other things to think about.
Unfortunately, my time has nearly run out. In the remaining minutes, I should like to mention a letter from the head of governors at Grassmoor primary school, in which he asked if the Secretary of State for Education would come to Grassmoor school and let the governors, parents and others explain their case—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentlemans time is up.
8.39 pm
Mr. David Faber: I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and other hon. Members will forgive me if I do not necessarily follow them down the same route. I would dearly love to have time

1101
to debate choice, rising standards and the grant-maintained status system—I have listened with great interest to speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin)—but, like other hon. Members, I shall concentrate specifically on issues that affect my county of Wiltshire.
I listened carefully to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) who, sadly, is no longer in his place. He commented at length on the scare stories and problems that had arisen in his constituency and in Devon as a whole as a result of activities by Liberal Democrats locally. I readily acknowledge the presence of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) throughout this debate, but it is instructive that, although massive petitions have been organised by Liberal Democrats in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and throughout the west country, hon. Members who represent those counties have been ignominious by their absence tonight.
Mr. Sebastian Coe: They cannot all be in Bosnia.
Mr. Faber: As my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) says, they cannot all be in Bosnia at the same time.
When the funding settlement was first announced in Wiltshire, we faced no problems. Indeed, an opposition spokesman on Wiltshire county council said that there were no scare stories or talk of sacking teachers in Wiltshire, and that we faced no problems. Yet on 15 February this year, in an extraordinary letter which the chief education officer was mandated to send to all chairmen of governors by the Labour and Liberal Democrat ruling group on the council, he urged all chairmen of governors to write to the Chancellor asking for the teachers pay increase to be funded in full.
Mr. Blunkett: Quite right.
Mr. Faber: The hon. Gentleman says, Quite right. I shall explain how wrong and misguided he is.
Sadly, many governors have been hoodwinked and scared by the LEA into writing that letter. They have been led to believe that education funding in Wiltshire is not sufficient, whereas nothing could be further from the case. The chief education officer acknowledges in his letter:
The budgetary prospects in Wiltshire are better than in many other LEAs, due to the Councils readiness to put front-line services first. The budget will meet the costs of increased numbers.
It is certainly true that the budget and the grant handed down by central Government will meet the increased numbers of pupils in schools but, sadly, it has nothing to do with the local councils good housekeeping.
Pupil numbers in Wiltshire have risen more quickly than nationally. The upshot is that Wiltshire pupils now make up a larger proportion of the national pupil total, so Wiltshire gets a larger share of national funding. As a result, the education SSA for 1995–96 in Wiltshire will be £188.56 million, a 2.7 per cent. increase, against a national average of just 1.2 per cent., so the Government have fully funded the rise in pupil numbers in Wiltshire.
The letter goes on to tackle the problem of teachers pay and to explain the LEAs position. Of the 2.7 per cent. increase agreed nationally, it says that the budget
1102
can cope with funding 2 per cent. and asks schools to find the remaining 0.7 per cent. Even on that, it is not strictly accurate.
At primary level, all but 0.35 per cent. of the settlement has been funded, yet some primary school governors are still writing to me in the expectation that they will be 0.7 per cent. short. That shortfall represents just 0.2 per cent. of the total primary school budget in Wiltshire, a global figure of just £150,000, which the county council has the nerve to say it cannot find. At secondary level, 0.7 per cent. is not fully funded by the county council. That represents 0.45 per cent. of the total budget.
My hon. Friends who represent Wiltshire and I were not surprised that county councillors initial reaction was to say, without daring to blush, that that was all they could fund and that, if teachers were to be sacked, it was the Governments fault. I put it on the record that the Conservative group on the council voted against sending that letter to the chairmen of governors.
Let us examine a little more closely the expenditure of the local education authority and of Wiltshire county council as a whole—expenditure which the LEA has conveniently ignored or glossed over. I am afraid to say that Wiltshire has done all too little to reduce central administration costs.
Why is it that, in neighbouring Dorset and nearby Hampshire, 4.5 per cent. of the total school budget is spent on administration? I understand that, in Lancashire—the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) has now left the Chamber—it is just 1.7 per cent., yet Wiltshire still spends 5.2 per cent. of its total budget on administration. That may sound a small percentage difference, but it is a huge sum when taken out of an approved budget of £201 million.
Let us look, too, at how successful Wiltshire is at delegating its budget to schools under LMS. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire mentioned the potential schools budget, a figure that represents the LEAs total planned expenditure in respect of schools operating under local management, less the authoritys planned central expenditure on items that are statutorily excluded.
In 1994–95, Wiltshire, like other counties, excluded the normal sums for capital expenditure for school transport, school meals and other items. Yet last year, Wiltshire delegated less of its potential schools budget to schools than it had the year before. In 1993–94, Wiltshire held back 12.8 per cent. of its budget for its own use, yet in 1994–95, that figure rose to 14 per cent., an unexplained increase of 1.2 per cent. That means that, across the board, schools in the county had 1.2 per cent. less to spend last year than they had the year before.
I am sorry to say that those figures make Wiltshire one of the worst performing counties in the country when it comes to delegating its budget to schools. It is often said that the success of LMS has made opting out unnecessary. Those figures show just how much council schools are at the mercy of local politicians, who, as in the case of Wiltshire, have chosen to put the delegation process into reverse. Grant-maintained status gives the schools control over their budget as of right, not out of grace and favour and at the whim of local councilors.
Wiltshire county council has other so-called crucial spending plans in its budget this year. It has decided to continue with the employment of an environmental

1103
co-ordinator, plus support staff, and a crime co-ordinator, plus his support staff. Most outrageous of all, it continues to support neighbouring Somerset county councils legal quest to ban hunting on council land. Despite the legal decision of the Court of Appeal just two weeks ago, Wiltshire continues to fund Somersets legal campaign. Just yesterday, it voted through an extra £13,500 to take on a survey to be run by the agricultural college at Cirencester to prove that hunting damages the environment.
Now is not the time to debate the merits or otherwise of hunting, and I have no interest in doing so. But surely childrens education comes first. Those figures must rise from the £50,000 that has already been spent towards £100,000. I remind hon. Members that, just a few moments ago, I pointed out that the shortfall in funding the teachers pay rise in primary education in Wiltshire is just £150,000, yet it seems to be more important to those councillors to spend money on banning hunting in neighbouring Somerset—not even in their own county—than on providing teachers in Wiltshires primary schools.
Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors on Wiltshire county council are shamelessly playing party politics with childrens education. They have jumped on a national bandwagon of protest when no such bandwagon need exist in Wiltshire, because no such problems exist. Local opposition spokesmen on the council admitted as much when the grant settlement was first announced.
The letter from the chief education officer to the chairmen of governors in schools is a shameful attempt to scare them and bully the Government. I pay tribute to the hundreds of governors in Wiltshire who give of their time so generously, and to the thousands of teachers who do such invaluable work in our schools. I appeal to them not to be taken in by what has been said by the local politicians. I appeal to them to ask those local politicians searching questions along the lines that I have tried to lay out today.
My message to Wiltshire county council would be to find the money, fund the pay increase in full and put childrens education at the top of its agenda, and not relegate it below some of its little pet projects.
8.49 pm
Mr. Stephen Byers: I am delighted to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. For the information of the Minister, some pupils from my constituency were in Westminster today—pupils from the Sacred Heart primary school in Wideopen.
Mr. Forth: Why were they not at school?
Mr. Byers: The Minister will be glad to hear that they were here on an educational visit, and I hope that Hansard will note that the Minister objects to the fact that they were here. For the Ministers information, the guide who took them round commended them on their knowledge of history. Like many other hon. Members whose constituents have had school trips here, I am sure that it is a valuable learning exercise.
It is deeply disappointing that the Minister does not appear to agree that visits by schoolchildren are to their benefit. I believe they are, and it is deeply disappointing that the Minister who sits there on the Government Bench shakes his head, disapproving of that visit. I shall ensure
1104
that those schoolchildren and their parents are made fully aware of the way in which that Conservative Minister says that they are too young to benefit from such a visit.
The key is that all political parties should broadly agree that education is about raising standards and improving quality. I think that all hon. Members will agree that we must seek to do that. We disagree, because the Government do it on the basis of dogma and the introduction of market forces because they believe that that is the politically correct thing to do, while we, on the Opposition side of the Chamber, believe that the market has no part to play in education provision.
We believe that the market is about profit and loss, gainers and losers. It is our opinion that any philosophy of education based on the opinion that some of our children must be losers so that others can be gainers is unacceptable. We need an education service that meets the needs and demands of all our children.
We arranged the debate today—
Mr. Forth: We?
Mr. Byers: As the Opposition, we have used one of our supply days.
We arranged the debate because it is our opinion that the policies being pursued by the Government have failed, and will continue to fail, the schoolchildren of our country.
We need only read the official reports from the Office of Standards in Education to realise—those reports show it clearly—that about one third of our schoolchildren are being failed by the system. They receive a substandard education. That is unacceptable. We need policies that will ensure that that 33 per cent. of schoolchildren receive the education they need and deserve.
The Government amendment talks about giving parents more choice. I remind the Minister of the comments he made in Committee during the passage of the Education Act 1993, when he accepted, and said very clearly, that the Government were not offering choice to parents. Those were the Ministers words—that the Government could not offer choice to parents. All they could do was allow parents to express a preference. That is all the Government are doing—allowing a preference to be expressed. Parents cannot choose the school to which they will send their children—they can only express a preference.
However, the Minister, the Government and the Conservative party, by talking about choice, have raised parental expectations. It should be no surprise that, in the past three years alone, the number of parents appealing against not obtaining a place at the school of their choice for their child has more than doubled. Those are the Governments own figures.
Spending is at the heart of the debate. The settlement for schools takes no account of the extra 116,000 pupils who will be in the school system from September 1995. It takes no account of the additional financial burdens of the introduction of the new code of practice for those children with special educational needs, and no account of the additional demands of-the national curriculum. The Government introduce all those policies, but choose to ignore them when allocating resources.
The way in which the Government have dealt with this years teachers pay award has highlighted, not just for politicians but for parents and governors, the way in

1105
which the Government are treating the funding of our education system. The current Secretary of State for Education has failed to deliver for our children, their parents and school governors.
The last time there was difficulty in funding a settlement for teachers, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), rustled up an extra £67 million from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help fund the teachers pay settlement. He did what he could for the education service, as recently as three years ago. The present Secretary of State has failed.
What about the standard spending assessments? We heard from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) about the problems being caused to the education budget in Derbyshire. The hon. Gentleman should have found out what Derbyshire is spending on education this year and compared it with the standard spending assessment given next year for education in Derbyshire. If he had compared the two figures—as he is a Conservative Member, I can understand why he did not do so—he would have discovered that this year Derbyshire is spending £333 million on education, but next year it has a standard spending assessment for education of £303 million. There is a gap of £30 million.
There is a warning here. Conservative Members speak about a national funding system for education. If we had that, based on the criteria of the Government, £30 million would be cut from Derbyshires education budget. Nationally, it would mean a cut of £486 million.
We are aware that standards are under attack throughout the system. In our primary schools, more than 1 million children—one in four—are in classes of more than 30. The Office of Standards in Education has been told that there must be a primary inspection every four years for every school, but, at the present rate of performance, it will take eight years, because the Government have not provided the resources to allow the job to be done properly, and indeed intend to cut the budget for future years.
We have a Department for Education that knows a great deal about waste. The failed national curriculum cost tens of millions of pounds. The Minister who sits there on the Treasury Bench has an office in a building the rent of which is £1 million—and for the information of those schools that worry about capital, not £1 million a year, but more than £1 million a month rent is being paid for the Departments offices in Sanctuary buildings. That is where the real waste exists.
What about the example of the proposed city technology college in Brighton? The Government paid £2.3 million for the site. Two years later, when there were no takers, it had to be sold for £1.5 million—money wasted.
We may have a new Secretary of State with warm words and sweet smiles, but we have a harsh settlement for local government. Our children will suffer school budget cuts this year so that taxes can be cut next year. Our children should not be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
8.59 pm
Mr. Sebastian Coe: I am delighted to be able to contribute to the debate this evening, and I am equally delighted to be able to answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He asked where Conservative Members were educated, and what their hopes were for their children. He
1106
will know that I was educated in Sheffield in the state system from primary to tertiary level, and I hope that my children will enjoy the same benefits as I have gained from a state education.
I am also delighted to take part in a debate in which there is so much underlying accord between the two parties. In the past few weeks, Opposition Members have made a mad scramble to nick our clothing on many key issues. It must have been with difficulty and a sense of embarrassment that the hon. Member for Brightside has been forced to make U-turns on the subject of league tables, opt-out schools, charitable status and a number of other very important issues. I hazard a guess that there are more U-turns to come—and not only in education.
I recognise that there have been fewer emotive debates in the House this year. However, in the county of Cornwall I have rarely witnessed a debate in which so much mischief and emotional blackmail has been peddled by so few to so many. I hazard a guess that, if the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council had a remit for health, it would have trooped out nurses rather than teachers in this ritual dance.
The Liberal Democrats have cynically used education in the county in an attempt to derive some rather shabby political advantages. They circulated a bogus and misleading petition in that county; my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and I have written to the leader of the Liberal Democrats asking him to withdraw it. The Liberal Democrats have made a tremendous amount of mischief in Cornwall, but not one Liberal Democrat representative from that county has set foot in the Chamber all afternoon. I think that that shows in true relief the crocodile tears that they have shed over the issue.
The bogus petition circulated in Cornwall simply said that children in that county were worth £100 less than children in any other part of the country. That is a shabby statistical sleight of hand. The Liberals did not take into account the area cost adjustment and other key components.
Will the Liberal Democrats in Cornwall tell the children on the Isles of Scilly, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, that the benefits of extra considerations will be removed? I have not noticed a huge campaign being carried out in the constituencies of Bermondsey, Christchurch and Newbury in favour of the removal of the area cost adjustment. There is total silence about that issue.
Cornwall sits mid-table as far as expenditure is concerned. In the past 20 years, spending on secondary and primary education has risen, and it has increased most profoundly in the past 10 years. At the annual general meeting in his constituency a few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives described the whole argument being pushed by Liberal Democrat councillors and Members of Parliament in that county as lies, damned lies and Liberal Democrat statistics. We must punch a hole in those statistics, because they do not hold water.
There is no doubt that this local government settlement is tight; it would be naive and coy of me to pretend otherwise. However, I ask the county to look very carefully at its reserves; at the amount of money that is held back centrally for administrative services and for surplus places. It should examine its unspent balances and look very carefully at reordering its priorities.

1107
If the county sacks teachers—which is what it is threatening to do—let us make it clear that that is the priority of a Liberal Democrat-controlled county. It is not the priority of the Conservative grouping, the Labour grouping or the independent grouping in that county.
The Liberal Democrats are finding life a little difficult. They promised the earth in the build-up to the county elections a year ago, and they are now finding that the reality of democratic control means that occasionally they must make difficult decisions. As I am told time and again by the council that reserves are sacrosanct and should not be touched, I will leave the House with an interesting observation about my previous political year.
In the parlance of Match of the Day pundits, it was a year of two halves. I spent the first half of my year fighting with county hall and imploring the council to dip into its reserves in order to reinstate two primary schools in my constituency—Trevithick school in Camborne and Stithians school in the village where I live—which had been cynically removed and placed down the list of the councils priorities for capital expenditure. When I approached county hall about the matter, I was told that under no circumstance could I push the council any further on the question of dipping into its reserves.
I spent the second half of my political year fighting county hall about the imposition of four new age traveller transit sites in my constituency. Anyone who is familiar with the constituency of Falmouth and Camborne will know that we need four new age traveller transit sites like we need a hole in the head.
County hall said that, if I could not support its bid to Government for funding—which was to be repealed three weeks later—it would dip into county reserves. Education priorities in the county of Cornwall were demonstrated by the refusal of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament to oppose the establishment of those sites, and by the councillors who sat in the background and hoped that the whole issue would go away.
We ask a great deal of teachers in this country and in my constituency. They are committed, loyal and professional. I was educated in the state system. I attended Tapton school in Sheffield, Abbeydale Grange and Loughborough university. They were two very good schools, and I was delighted to attend them, but we are now asking more from our teachers than we have ever asked before in exactly the same way as we are asking more of our police service.
Teachers in my constituency, and the length and breadth of the country, are dealing with children with fewer social skills than ever. I meet head teachers regularly at my parliamentary education forum, and they say exactly the same. There was a time when that was at least compensated for to some extent by childrens television. The waterfall of rubbish that passes for childrens television is a sadness, and on Saturday mornings is little more than an orgy of commercial interests pushing videos and CDs—and it is not helping.
We have to kill the myth that what happened in the 1980s was a continual starvation of education funding in Britain. In 1980, we were spending 20.4 per cent. of our national income on welfare, including education. By 1990, we were spending 21.4 per cent. of a significantly larger national income.
1108
In the county of Cornwall, and on national indices, there is no getting away from the fact that education has been well funded by the Government. Teachers pay has risen by 55 or 60 per cent. in real terms, and there have been increases of 35 per cent. on school equipment and books, and more than 50 per cent. in real terms on gross expenditure in education.
It is nonsense to pretend that those are the statistics of starvation and deprivation. They are not. We have a great duty to skill properly and make sure that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
9.9 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I am also delighted to take part in the debate, as I took part in the earlier one when the local government settlement was first announced. I offer the House my apologies for not being present when the debate began, but I was in a Select Committee until about 6.30 pm.
In the debate on the local government settlement, I drew the Ministers attention to the spending pressures that have been imposed upon my local authority, Barnsley. In the past four years, Barnsley has had to absorb enormous pressures. For example, between 1990 and 1994, the number of children on free school meals has increased to 9,591. That represents a 58 per cent. increase. The number of children receiving a grant for clothing has increased by 54 per cent. and there has been an enormous increase in the number of children requiring special needs education. The figure has increased from 1.3 to 3.1 per cent. of pupils in Barnsley. That has meant that the authority has had to find about another £6 million to meet those increased pressures.
When we discussed those issues in the last debate, the Minister looked askance when I drew attention to the facts about Barnsley and when I intervened on his speech, he said that I was trying to square the circle. The circle is that Barnsley has not been able to use the resources available for its children because of the cuts and their impact.
The schools maintenance programme is now estimated to be more than £12 million. That is what is required to bring schools up to standard. Some schools have bucket monitors. When it rains, children are sent out with buckets to catch the water because the buildings are in a such a bad state. The impact of the cuts will be enormous.
According to the report of the education department in Barnsley, another £3.7 million will be required this year to meet the 1994–95 standards. The Minister will be aware that our SSA has been considerably lower, but the authority is spending its full SSA on education.
If the Minister will pay attention, I shall point out the real impact of the cuts on Barnsley. The report prepared by the education department draws attention to the increased class sizes in our secondary schools. It points out that the class sizes for science and technology are likely to be in excess of 28. When one bears in mind the real need to increase the skills in that age group, particularly in terms of GNVQs, it is clear that larger class sizes will not be able to provide that little extra to enable pupils to reach the required standard. That will impact on opportunities in further education.

1109
There will be an increase in the number of classes that will be taught by non-specialist teachers and that again will mean a lowering of standards. If non-specialist teachers are used in Barnsley, the standards there will be lower than those in areas that can afford qualified teachers. There will be large reductions in capitation. It is estimated, for instance, that in some secondary schools the capitation fee will be as low as £10 per pupil. The money restriction will mean a restriction on examination entries as well: children will be denied the opportunity to extend their education by taking examinations.
There will be no provision for pupils with additional needs. Non-statemented pupils will not receive the essential support that they require. I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State is present: she probably is not aware of the impact that the cuts will have in Barnsley. Class sizes will increase in secondary schools, particularly in science and technology. As I have said, that will have a huge impact on general national vocational qualifications. Children need to specialise if they are to use their skills in jobs.
Class sizes will also increase in primary schools. The Secretary of State may not know that it is estimated that some class sizes in Barnsley may reach more than 40. Primary education is particularly important to children in their formative years, but many children in Barnsley will not have the opportunities that are available to children in other areas.
There will also be an increase in mixed-age groups. Many schools will have three age groups in one class, and there will be cross-phasing: for instance, key stages 1 and 2 will be in the same class. There will be no provision for pupils with additional needs, in both primary and secondary schools.
9.17 pm
Mr. Alan Howarth: All that we know about the world before us tells us that our investment in education will be crucial for the personal development of our children, for the quality of our democracy and society—if we fail to educate children adequately, the public expenditure bill will ineluctably come back on the social security and police budgets—and for our capacity to compete in an ever-more demanding global economy in which knowledge-based activities and intellectual skills are increasingly at a premium.
I note with satisfaction that the Government have indeed invested in education. They have increased spending in real terms by 50 per cent. per pupil. I note the enormous increase in the numbers who stay at school after the age of 16, the exciting developments in further education and the huge rise in participation in higher education. I share the Governments pride in that. Now, however, my right hon. and hon. Friends seem to be withdrawing from that commitment. They are reducing their planned expenditure on education, and just at a time when the fiscal imperative for public expenditure restraint has abated. In the coming year, the public sector borrowing requirement will be 3 per cent. of gross domestic product; it is heading towards 0.75 per cent. of GDP in 1997–98. We can afford to invest properly in education; indeed, we cannot afford not to.
Of course it is not easy to balance growth in investment with tight cost control, but that is the task of responsible central Government and local authorities. My right hon.
1110
and hon. Friends argue that it will be possible, by dint of increased efficiency, to maintain education provision within budgets that increase below inflation. The scope for efficiency gains varies markedly from authority to authority. Every LEA, like every large organisation, is capable of some efficiency improvements. At one time, I was sharply critical of Warwickshire, considering that there was scope for savings on marginal expenditure and improved efficiency. Then, for two years in succession, my county was capped, and in the three subsequent years the Government permitted the county to increase expenditure only below inflation.
The squeeze on Warwickshire has been tight and its administrative expenditure is below the county average. Any economies that remain within Warwickshires power would not be commensurate with the savings that the Government require. The effect on the county of capping has been the more severe because Warwickshires SSA is plainly wrong. The theory is that SSAs underpinned by central Government grant provide for parity of provision throughout the country. As it is, Warwickshire is spending 9 per cent. above the SSA and 3.6 per cent. per head below the counties average, yet one third of its primary schools have classes of more than 30 pupils and one tenth have classes of more than 35. The county effectively has no discretionary awards and its youth service has been cut by half.
The conclusion must be that the Government have miscalculated Warwickshires SSA. The Treasury and the Department of the Environment should acknowledge that, whatever the theory, in practice SSAs throw up anomalies and they should act to correct the systems deficiencies and injustices.
For five years, Members of Parliament representing Warwickshire constituencies and representatives of all parties on the county council have been waiting on Ministers to explain the deficiencies of our SSAs and to seek help. Always we are told that the matter will be looked at for next year and that Warwickshire should sort things out within the Association of County Councils. When next year comes, there is no significant relief and we know that other counties in the ACC will not come to Warwickshires rescue because that would be to their detriment.
The Governments present requirements are impossible for Warwickshire to meet without significantly damaging education provision. The 1.2 per cent. increase in the SSA is academic because, under the cap, the county is permitted to increase spending by only half of 1 per cent.—yet the Government require teachers pay to be increased by 2.7 per cent. We can square that circle only by reducing the number of teaching posts and increasing class sizes.
Of course it is right to improve teachers pay. On 24 November 1990—a pregnant period in the history of the Conservative party—my right hon. Friend who became Prime Minister was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying:
We need to give teachers back the status they once had and that will mean more money for the right teachers delivering the right service.
Teachers want to deliver the right service.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows the difficulties in Warwickshire because we have had a series of meetings with her. She knows that our concern is shared across the political parties. In her internal letter, leaked in The Times Educational Supplement, she warned of the damage and of what could happen to the

1111
atmosphere in the education service that my right hon. Friend, through her commitment to the nations children and to teachers, has done so much to improve.
Having studied Warwickshires school budgets, I know how well founded were my right hon. Friends warnings. The budget for Stratford high school for the forthcoming year is down £310,000. That secondary school will have classes of more than 30 pupils, in classrooms that were never designed for such numbers. Eight teachers will lose their jobs and the school has averted the loss of another eight posts only by using reserves accumulated to improve the computer network to meet the requirements of the national curriculum. The school is even more deeply worried about the consequences of the following year, because it cannot use those one-off reserves twice.
In Brailes junior and infant school, the number of full-time teachers will be reduced from five to four and classes will increase to 34 pupils. Shipston junior and infant school loses £43,000 from its budget, and Bidford junior and infant school loses £35,000. Bidford and Studley junior schools will have their special educational needs provision cut. The Minister of State has done a marvellous job improving the policy framework for special needs, but we shall not realise his aspirations if we do not have the requisite resources.
Warwickshire school governors are public-spirited people, and we have done much to increase their responsibilities. They are now faced with a cruel dilemma. Twenty Warwickshire school governing bodies have decided to return the responsibility for drawing up school budgets to the local education authority. I cannot criticise them for doing so.
At Shottery junior and infant school, there are plans to raise money on appeal, to the tune of £50 per family. Those families have paid their taxes. They would be happy to pay more to ensure adequate education provision. They would be happy to pay an extra 23p a week on their council tax. That would raise £2 million, which would be enough to save the jobs of 100 teachers in the county—but the Government have imposed a cap on the county that prevents them from doing so.
If these limitations on education spending are designed to clear the way for tax cuts later this year, I repudiate that policy. It would be entirely wrong to cut taxes on the affluent while the needs of our public services are not properly met. We are not highly taxed in this country. Historically, people have voted Conservative because they have seen the Conservative party as the party of relatively low taxation. That remains true. A Labour Government would always intervene more and spend more; taxes will always be lower under a Conservative Government than under a Labour Government.
More importantly, people have voted Conservative because they have seen us as more competent to manage the economy and they have accepted our genuine commitment to public services. My right hon. Friends have done much to retrieve the Conservative partys reputation for good economic management. Evidence of that is all around us in the economic recovery. By that same token, we can afford to improve public services. We shall not be forgiven if we neglect the trust that people have placed in us to provide properly for the public services.
1112
Unless my hon. Friend can offer me some immediate relief for Warwickshire schools this evening, I would be failing my constituents if I were to support the Government in the Division Lobby.
9.26 pm
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), but I begin mine by complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on his exposition of the educational failings of the Government—ably supported as he was by many Opposition Members. It is pity that we did not hear the same reasoned intellectual defence of the Governments position by Conservative Members. Instead they trotted out the same old myths—and Trot will be a word to which I will return when I deal with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) about Stalinism in Kent.
The Government amendment
welcomes the substantial increase in the real level of education spending since 1979; notes that in a tough settlement overall local authorities will still be able to spend more next year than in 1994–95.
Parents, governors, teachers and councillors throughout the land know that that claim is nonsense. The Governments capping limits restrict most LEAs to a cash increase of 0.5 per cent., out of which they must pay for the teachers pay rise of 2.7 per cent.—not to mention adult education, nursery education, increasing pupil numbers and special educational needs.
In real terms LEAs are having to cut an enormous £390 million from their education budgets, with the English shires bearing the brunt. There appears to be a consensus among all interested parties—including many Tory Ministers, Back Benchers and local councillors—that the current system of education funding does not work. There is widespread agreement that the funding awarded by the DFE for the 1995–96 financial year is inadequate and reveals a stark lack of understanding of the limitations under which schools are already struggling to function. Many simply will not be able to provide the amount and standard of service that is necessary without dramatic changes to schools make-up. There are countless nationwide illustrations of that.
Schools are often obliged to fund part or all of the teachers pay increase by adding tens of thousands of pounds to their payrolls. They are having to reduce numbers of teaching and support staff by means of pushing experienced teachers towards early retirement, voluntary redundancy, non-renewal of temporary contracts, or of taking on newly qualified, inexperienced teachers, rather than the more mature pedagogues who cost more on the salary scale. They are having to make further cuts in spending on books, equipment and maintenance. Faced with the possibility of staff cuts, schools are having to increase class sizes, resulting in less quality time teaching and more mixed-age and ability groups.
The Government show either culpable ignorance or malicious contempt for education, with their failure to address the reality of education in the country today. As the Secondary Heads Association—a body that includes the headmasters conference among its members—put it, there are systematic problems. First, future spending is largely determined by historical levels of spending, and that leads to all sorts of anomalies. Secondly, there is no

1113
direct linkage between funding decisions and decisions regarding the type and amount of education provision that should be available. Thirdly, the data used to calculate budgets are far too removed from the actual costs.
If I may, I shall quote directly from the Conservative-dominated Education Select Committee, which warned two years ago:
The decision that whilst schools would be funded largely by reference to pupil numbers, the actual costs (including actual, rather than average salaries) which they incurred would be charged to their budgets. Whilst this is, on the surface, relatively simple and fair, schools which in the past had a relatively high proportion of experienced teachers at the top of the salary scale (and therefore higher costs) have lost money as a result of a switch to a system of resource allocation which assumes that all teachers cost the same amount. Many of those losing schools will have lost relatively small amounts, but anecdotal evidence has suggested that a significant minority of schools have sustained losses which can only be absorbed within a relatively small and inflexible budget by parting with senior teachers and replacing them with inexperienced teachers, or not replacing them at all.
What does that tell us about standards in our schools?
The hon. Member for Dartford made heavy going of his claim of increased or better standards from the Government. Let me give him a yardstick with which to test the standards that the Government have achieved over the past 16 years, noting that, within the age group 16 to 24, the education of a huge number of people has been determined by 16 years of Tory Government. In that age group, 750,000 young people are out of education, out of training, out of jobs, out of benefit and out of Government statistics. I am afraid that it is a distortion to look only towards one end of the scale in terms of the end product of the education system.
That has now come to pass with a vengeance. The examples of the losses to schools are many. I shall give the House just a few. The Secretary of States own authority—Norfolk—has suffered. Its education SSA for next year is £234.8 million. Last year, it spent £252.5 million. It has had a cut of £3.276 million. What that really means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said, is that cuts were made to discretionary awards, community education, adult education and school meals. Nottinghamshire, which houses the Chancellors constituency—we heard from the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) earlier—spent £378 million last year. But the pay increase will cost the authority nearly £6 million and there will be a shortfall of £2.5 million. If that does not mean cuts, I do not know what does.
Oxfordshire, where the previous Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) has his seat, is an excellent example of the duplicity of the Governments amendment. The frustration and anger of middle England has manifested itself there, as in Warwickshire, Shropshire and other shires not noted for their revolutionary tendencies. In Oxfordshire, one can quote Wesley Green middle school, on the now infamous Blackbird Leys estate, which is now £64,000 down on what it was spending three years ago, and it anticipates losing a further £40,000. Or Mr. Betteridge, a parent governor at Burford school, who said that schools now had to decide which law to break: whether to exceed their budgets or fail to deliver the national curriculum. A teacher at the
1114
same school suggested that it would lose six posts. Judith Bennett, who chairs the governing body of Chalgrove primary school, said:
We are going to concentrate nine classes into eight. At the moment, they are low to mid-20s and this will now go to over 30.
The cuts to local authorities were so great that it moved a Tory councillor to prepare a confidential briefing paper to Oxfordshires Conservative Members of Parliament. He wrote:
It is clear that 1995–96 contains real problems and is going to be the most difficult budget the county has had to set,
with only two services, education and social services, costing enough to
bear the brunt of the necessary reductions … It seems certain that there will be reductions in school budgets, possibly of 3 to 4 per cent.
He said that primary schools would probably cope by reducing numbers of learning support staff and that the
secondary schools may have to reduce teaching numbers with an impact on non-contact time or slight increases in class size.
If Conservative Members are ignorant, it is culpable ignorance. There may be method in the Governments madness because in The Guardian of 7 February another Tory councillor stated:
The silver lining for the Tories is a possible resuscitation of the opt-out policy. Only one Oxfordshire school has gone grant-maintained. It is to be hoped that budget pressures will force more of them to realise they can kick away the crutches of the LEA and stand quite adequately on their own two feet.
A Berkshire head said:
If things get worse we would look at going for CTC status and opting out. It sends a shiver down my spine to be forced down this route.
The Prime Minister would deny that the cuts are real or politically motivated. He would certainly find it hard to convince Mr. Brian Brown, a head teacher in a primary school in the Prime Ministers constituency, who in his anger at the £20,000 worth of cuts that he has been forced to make, told The Daily Telegraph, which is not exactly a radical newspaper:
Mr. Major is not doing his job representing the interests of the people here.
Most of us do not think that he is doing the job of representing the interests of the country, and certainly not in terms of education. The House should note this in the light of his ignorant comment last week when he said that if any local authority was thinking of cutting teachers in the classroom, he would like to ask it what saving it had made in non-teaching aspects of education. Clearly, he has no understanding of how the school community functions on a day-to-day basis, nor of the increasing bureaucracy involved in running a school, much of which is due to Government changes.
I am sure that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State will again tell local education authorities to set sensible priorities. On 21 March the Prime Minister said that there were two administrators for every three teachers. That is utter nonsense and the right hon. Gentlemans assumption vanishes immediately under examination. [Interruption.] That is a credit to the education system that operated when I was at school. Left-wing educationists taught us to prepare adequately, a function in which the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) does not appear to be adequate.

1115
About 65,000 non-manual staff are employed by local education authorities. Many of them are important front-line personnel on whom key services depend. They are educational psychologists, education welfare officers, inspectors and advisers, and youth and community workers. Only the residue can fairly be labelled as administrative staff, and they certainly form less than 5 per cent. of the total education complement.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside said, staff watch figures for local authority employment show that there are 404,000 teachers and 337,000 staff in England and Wales. The others category includes 162,000 manual workers such as cleaners, caretakers and ground maintenance workers. The Department for Educations evidence, which is quoted in the 1995 review body report, is that, of the balance, 109,000 are employed in schools in England on education support and administrative and clerical work.
Does the Prime Minister seriously suggest that school secretaries, dinner ladies, caretakers, psychologists, education welfare officers, advisers and youth workers should be sacked? The sensible citizen would hope not. The Secretary of State reinforced the cynical image of this tired, discredited Government when she wrote to Conservative Members urging them to question local authority spending on nursery education as schools face budget cuts. Margaret Lally, chair of the National Campaign for Nursery Education, said:
We have always doubted the Governments real commitment to increasing state nursery education. This just shows how little they have.
The National Governors Council agrees, given the Prime Ministers pledge to his party conference, to provide nursery education within the lifetime of this Parliament. [Interruption.]
I shall now deal with some of the earlier comments. I could not believe them and had to consider them at great length. The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) made a big play about the assisted places scheme. I remind him of the review that he wrote about state and private education, and the value of the assisted places scheme. I am sure that he will take kindly to my quoting him directly:
Certainly ministers, including myself, have claimed in the annual debate on the scheme in Parliament that the sons and daughters of bus and lorry drivers, miners, butchers, recent immigrants and one-parent families, for example, have through the scheme received a first-class education … Even more significantly, 68 per cent of mothers and 51 per cent of fathers of such pupils attended either private or selective education.
I suspect, however, that the aspirant assisted-place parents with their educational backgrounds would not have sent their children to inner-city sink comprehensives … Thus if there is any damage it must be to the better … comprehensive schools.
I cannot think of anything that is more invidious and more designed to undermine the education provision of the vast majority of children.
Sir Rhodes Boyson rose—
Mr. Kilfoyle: I am conscious of the time. I have given way many times.
1116
I move to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). I do not know whether he is in his place. He pleaded—
Sir Rhodes Boyson rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is clearly not giving way.
Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Member for West Derbyshire said that he waited 28 hours for an answer from the chairman of the Derbyshire education committee. I have news for the hon. Gentleman. I managed to meet the chairman today. He was here taking part in a lobby with thousands of Derbyshire parents, teachers and pupils. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not go out and meet them today.
Mr. McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has said that I refused to meet people today. He is wrong.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order.
Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Member for Dartford talks about Stalinism. I do not know what he knows about that or about democratic centralism. I know a fair bit about both. Outside the Militant Tendency, I have never known of a better example of democratic centralism than the way in which the Conservative party conducts the countrys affairs.
When the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) wants to sing the praises of grant-maintained schools, I hope that he will consider the position of St. James school in Bolton, where the head teacher was sacked for corruption. One may say that that was the exception that proved the rule. I could not understand why the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation, which had a base in that school, could not, apparently, monitor what was going on there.
Education in Kent was raised by the hon. Members for Dartford and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) in an intervention, as Hansard will show. Whenever I see the hon. Member for Dartford and his close friends and collaborators the Members for Gravesham and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)—who is off on an antipodean visit—I tend to think of the Bash Street Kids. I think of Plug, Danny and Smiffy in educational terms. In a kinder moment, I tend to think of the Three Stooges—Larry, Curly and Mo—except that they were amusing. There is nothing amusing about the attritional warfare that those hon. Gentlemen wage against education provision in Kent.
Mr. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat the attack on me? I could not make out what he was saying.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Kilfoyle: I shall provide Hansard with a translation if it needs it. The hon. Member for Dartford fails to point out that, in the 18 years before the new administration came into Kent, not one new nursery place was built in Kent. Eight new nursery units have been set up this year, including one in his constituency.
The hon. Gentleman failed to point out that the administration has given £750,000 to voluntary and independent sectors, that it has doubled the number of

1117
classroom assistants in infant classes or where there are children with special needs, and that it has reduced the number of children waiting for special needs assessments. It has also injected an extra £11.8 million for children with special educational needs by fully funding the code of practice. He also failed to point out that it has made good a shortfall of nearly £500,000 for section 11 funding which was caused by Home Office decisions and withdrawals, that it fully funded the teachers pay rise last year and that it is providing £6 million extra to take care of repairs in the county. The silence that greets these points is instructive.
I urge the House to vote for the Labour motion and to treat the Government amendment with the contempt that it deserves.
9.44 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): The few people who have witnessed the debate—sadly, there have been relatively few—would be forgiven for thinking that it has taken place under entirely false pretences. This is styled an Opposition day debate—a debate called by the Opposition—and one would therefore have assumed that the Opposition regarded the subject as being of passing importance. However, I have made a careful note of the numbers of Labour and Liberal Members present during this debate on what the Opposition claim is an important subject close to their hearts.
At 5.30 pm, there were four Labour Back Benchers and one Liberal Member in the Chamber. At 8.15 pm, there were two Labour Back Benchers and no Liberal Members at all. Even half an hour ago, there were as many as six Labour Members present and the same Liberal Member—the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—who, I concede, has been here most of the day and who is still in his place.
The numbers that I have cited are bad enough but the depths of cynicism displayed by the Opposition are well illustrated by the briefing that has fallen into my hands. It is headed PLP Briefing by David Blunkett MP. I shall not weary the House by relating its irrelevances—
Mr. Blunkett: Read it out.
Mr. Forth: I shall read out part of it. The hon. Gentleman must be patient—I shall read his words to him. The last page of the briefing states:
We now have a major campaign running throughout the country with a petition available, leaflets prepared and education is a central part of our thrust for May 4.
So much for the alleged spontaneity of what is happening across the country. It is perfectly obvious that the protests that the Opposition claim are taking place are nothing more than a cynical and carefully orchestrated attempt to worry people unduly.
Regrettably, the debate has not, as one might have hoped, been about standards, achievement and opportunities in education. We would have welcomed such a debate. In reality, it has been about money. I shall dwell for a moment on money because a number of interesting facts have emerged.
For example, it has emerged that the total rates, community charge and council tax arrears run up by local authorities amounts to some £1.5 billion. In other words, authorities have failed to collect money that they should have collected, although some are at the same time
1118
complaining about not having enough money. That is bad enough, but the independent Audit Commission said that there are some £500 million worth of savings to be made through local authority efficiencies.
We have also heard that surplus school places could represent savings for local authorities of up to £250 million. Mention has been made of local education authority and school balances. The independent schoolteachers review body said that its pay award was affordable.
In her opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Ofsted report. She quoted the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) as having said that the chief inspectors report was
about as unbiased as you can get.
She went on to point out that the same report said about education money:
In overall terms, the provision of resources is satisfactory.
All in all, the picture is one of many opportunities being available to the local authorities that care to use them and manage their affairs and choose their priorities properly. They can make available to themselves substantial sums of money to spend on education, if they so wish.
That is the key to this whole debate. If we then consider individual authorities, some very interesting facts emerge. I was told today that, apparently, there was some sort of protest emanating from Derbyshire. Labour Members could not make up their minds earlier about how many people were involved in that protest. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who has not been seen since and, certainly, has not been present throughout the debate, claimed that 5,000 people were involved. The hon. Member for Brightside thought that the figure was 3,000 and then said that, anyway, there were a few thousand involved.
We do not know how many people were involved in that protest, but what has emerged is that the people who were here from Derbyshire included teachers and, it is said, pupils. I have been told—I cannot believe that this is true—that the teachers were taking what in the trade is known as a Baker day, so that they could come to the House of Commons on a political protest. I will be making it my business to make further inquiries about that, because if teachers in Derbyshire or anywhere else are using a Baker day to be away from their classrooms for a political protest, I would want to know a lot more about it.
The situation is worse than that. If supply cover was having to be introduced in those teachers classrooms to continue the education of their pupils, I would like to know how Derbyshire could find the money for supply cover to cover a political protest at the same time as it is apparently complaining about a lack of money.
Dr. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for threats to be made against persons approaching this House with a view to lobbying their Members of Parliament? Is that not a breach of parliamentary privilege—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All hon. Members are responsible for the words that they utter in this Chamber.
Mr. Forth: I would have thought that the House would regard it as a dereliction of duty if I did not make it my

1119
business to satisfy myself that taxpayers money, which is intended to be spent on education, was not being spent instead on political protest.
Dr. Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not honestly think that there can be anything further to that point of order. It is very clear. Every hon. Member is responsible for his own words in this Chamber. That is crystal clear.
Dr. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It had better be a new point of order.
Dr. Reid: I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is a breach of parliamentary privilege to threaten those approaching a Member of Parliament.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that he should write to Madam Speaker about such matters.
Mr. Barnes rose—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Forth: I seem—[Interruption.] I seem to have touched a rather raw nerve end.
Mr. Barnes rose—
Mr. Forth: I shall follow the rather bad example of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and I shall not take any interventions.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Absolutely!
Mr. Forth: I was going to point out that expenditure on education is of course a matter for local education authorities. That has emerged clearly from todays debate. What has been really important about today is the number of interesting examples that my hon. Friends have given of what their local education authorities have chosen as priorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), in a very telling intervention, pointed out that her local authority of Lancashire had increased its administrative staff over three or four years from 503 to 548. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) pointed out that Nottinghamshire had run up an overtime bill for its staff of £10 million and was carrying 20,000 surplus school places. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) pointed out that Ealing has some £17 million in its reserves.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) referred to 20,000 surplus school places in Derbyshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), in an excellent speech, pointed out not only that his authority of Wiltshire was spending 5.2 per cent. of its expenditure on administration, but, unbelievably, that it was wasting valuable money, which could be going on education, on pursuing some sort of anti-hunting vendetta.
1120
Such examples tell us clearly not only that the opportunities exist for local authorities to reorder their priorities and put more money into education, but that authorities such as those mentioned by my hon. Friends are wilfully refusing to order their spending priorities so as to put money into education. That is a condemnation of the kind that the debate has brought out clearly, but which Opposition Members have chosen to ignore completely.
What has emerged during the debate about Opposition policies? Predictably, the answer is almost nothing. Nothing has emerged about what the Opposition would do about education—although I must admit that the hon. Member for Bath has said that his party would put more money into education. However, on a platform that he shared with me recently—I am breaking no confidences because it was a public occasion—he said that the absolute priority for the Liberal Democrats was to put all the money into education for under-fives.
So the Liberal Democrats are not talking about funding the teachers pay increase, repairing crumbling school buildings or anything similar. I realise that education for the under-fives is where their priorities lie, but we should not let the debate pass imagining that they would put more money into the teachers pay award, which is the subject of the Opposition motion.
We listened in vain to hear what the Labour party would do about the education spending issues that Labour Members talk about. They talk about class sizes, arrears of building repairs and further and higher education expansion; occasionally they refer to student grants and loans; they have been known to refer to the reading recovery scheme. But they are not prepared or able to give any idea of whether they would fund even one of those areas. There is silence on that subject, and that is one of the most telling facts to emerge from the debate—the avoidance of any commitment by Opposition Members on what they would do to improve or even to change education spending. They are silent, and that fact should be well known.
Things get worse when Opposition Members start talking about standards and quality in education. As was pointed out forcefully by my right hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), we know all too clearly that time and again when the Government have brought forward positive measures to improve education standards, the Labour party has systematically opposed them. Labour opposed testing pupils to establish their educational needs, and opposed the publication of school results, until—
Mr. Blunkett: No, we did not.
Mr. Forth: Labour opposed that until the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) experienced a conversion. Now he tells us that not only does he welcome the publication of results—
Mr. Blunkett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Forth: No, I shall not.
Apparently the Leader of the Opposition would welcome the publication of even more details about what is happening in schools—although whether his Back Benchers support him remains to be seen.

1121
As for the hon. Member for Brightside, he said recently about grant-maintained schools:
I am having no truck with middle-class, left-wing parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area.
I cannot imagine whom he was thinking of. And when he was challenged during the debate about his attitude to grant-maintained schools earlier in the debate he said something from a sedentary position, which I shall now have written into Hansard for him, because I made a note of what he said. It was, I have not changed my views on opt-outs. In other words, in spite of his recent attempts to con headmasters of grant-maintained schools, the hon. Gentleman has not changed his mind on opt-outs, and his implacable opposition to grant-maintained status remains unchanged.
Therefore the debate has been informative, but not in the ways that the Opposition wanted it to be. We have established that education is in no sense starved of resources. It has received more and more money systematically, year on year, ever since the Government have been in office.
Secondly, we have clearly shown our commitment to improving quality and standards in education. All of the measures which we have put in place—the curriculum, testing, independent inspection, the publication of the performance results of schools—have systematically ensured an increase in the quality and standards in education. That is our continuing commitment. We have heard no commitments and nothing of any substance from the Opposition tonight. I urge the House utterly to reject the motion.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 289.

Division No. 119]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Ainger, Nick

Campbell-Savours, D N

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Canavan, Dennis

Allen, Graham

Cann, Jamie

Alton, David

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Chidgey, David

Armstrong, Hilary

Church, Judith

Austin-Walker, John

Clapham, Michael

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Barnes, Harry

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Barron, Kevin

Clelland, David

Bayley, Hugh

Coffey, Ann

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Cohen, Harry

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Bell, Stuart

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Corbett, Robin

Bennett, Andrew F

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bermingham, Gerald

Corston, Jean

Berry, Roger

Cox, Tom

Betts, Clive

Cummings, John

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Blunkett, David

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Boateng, Paul

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Bradley, Keith

Dalyell, Tam

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Darling, Alistair

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

Davidson, Ian

Burden, Richard

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Byers, Stephen

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Caborn, Richard

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Callaghan, Jim

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

1122

Denham, John

Kirkwood, Archy

Dewar, Donald

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Dixon, Don

Lewis, Terry

Dobson, Frank

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Donohoe, Brian H

Litherland, Robert

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Livingstone, Ken

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Llwyd, Elfyn

Eastham, Ken

Loyden, Eddie

Enright, Derek

Lynne, Ms Liz

Etherington, Bill

McAllion, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McAvoy, Thomas

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

McCartney, Ian

Fatchett, Derek

Macdonald, Calum

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

McFall, John

Fisher, Mark

McKelvey, William

Flynn, Paul

Mackinlay, Andrew

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McLeish, Henry

Foster, Don (Bath)

Maclennan, Robert

Foulkes, George

McMaster, Gordon

Fraser, John

McNamara, Kevin

Fyfe, Maria

MacShane, Denis

Galbraith, Sam

McWilliam, John

Galloway, George

Madden, Max

Gapes, Mike

Maddock, Diana

Garrett, John

Mahon, Alice

Gerrard, Neil

Mandelson, Peter

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Marek, Dr John

Godman, Dr Norman A

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Godsiff, Roger

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Graham, Thomas

Martlew, Eric

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Maxton, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Meacher, Michael

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Meale, Alan

Grocott, Bruce

Michael, Alun

Gunnell, John

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hain, Peter

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Hall, Mike

Milburn, Alan

Hanson, David

Miller, Andrew

Harman, Ms Harriet

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Harvey, Nick

Morgan, Rhodri

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Morley, Elliot

Henderson, Doug

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Heppell, John

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hinchliffe, David

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hodge, Margaret

Mudie, George

Hoey, Kate

Mullin, Chris

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Murphy, Paul

Home Robertson, John

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hood, Jimmy

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Hoon, Geoffrey

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Olner, Bill

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

O'Neill, Martin

Hoyle, Doug

Parry, Robert

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pearson, Ian

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Pickthall, Colin

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Pike, Peter L

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Pope, Greg

Hutton, John

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Illsley, Eric

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Ingram, Adam

Primarolo, Dawn

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Purchase, Ken

Janner, Greville

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Radice, Giles

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Randall, Stuart

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Raynsford, Nick

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Redmond, Martin

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Reid, Dr John

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Rendel, David

Jowell, Tessa

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Keen, Alan

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Rogers, Allan

Khabra, Piara S

Rooker, Jeff

Kilfoyle, Peter

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

1123

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Tipping, Paddy

Ruddock, Joan

Touhig, Don

Sedgemore, Brian

Turner, Dennis

Sheerman, Barry

Tyler, Paul

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Vaz, Keith

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Short, Clare

Wallace, James

Simpson, Alan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Skinner, Dennis

Wareing, Robert N

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wicks, Malcolm

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wigley, Dafydd

Snape, Peter

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea Wesst)

Soley, Clive

Spearing, Nigel

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Spellar, John

Wilson, Brian

Stevenson, George

Wise, Audrey

Stott, Roger

Worthington, Tony

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Wray, Jimmy

Straw, Jack

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Mr. Joe Benton and

Timms, Stephen

Mr. Jim Dowd.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Alexander, Richard

Coe, Sebastian

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Colvin, Michael

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Congdon, David

Amess, David

Conway, Derek

Arbuthnot, James

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Ashby, David

Couchman, James

Atkins, Robert

Cran, James

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

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

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baldry, Tony

Day, Stephen

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Devlin, Tim

Bates, Michael

Dicks, Terry

Batiste, Spencer

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bellingham, Henry

Dover, Den

Bendall, Vivian

Duncan, Alan

Beresford, Sir Paul

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Body, Sir Richard

Dunn, Bob

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Durant, Sir Anthony

Booth, Hartley

Dykes, Hugh

Boswell, Tim

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Elletson, Harold

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Bowis, John

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Brandreth, Gyles

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Brazier, Julian

Evennett, David

Bright, Sir Graham

Faber, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fabricant, Michael

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Browning, Mrs Angela

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Fishburn, Dudley

Budgen, Nicholas

Forman, Nigel

Burns, Simon

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Burt, Alistair

Forth, Eric

Butcher, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Butler, Peter

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Carttiss, Michael

French, Douglas

Cash, William

Fry, Sir Peter

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gale, Roger

Churchill, Mr

Gallie, Phil

Clappison, James

Gardiner, Sir George

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gillan, Cheryl

1124

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Mates, Michael

Gorst, Sir John

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Merchant, Piers

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mills, Iain

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Moate, Sir Roger

Hague, William

Monro, Sir Hector

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Nelson, Anthony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hannam, Sir John

Nicholls, Patrick

Harris, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Haselhurst, Alan

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hawkins, Nick

Norris, Steve

Hawksley, Warren

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hayes, Jerry

Oppenheim, Phillip

Heald, Oliver

Ottaway, Richard

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Page, Richard

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Paice, James

Hendry, Charles

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Hicks, Robert

Patten, Rt Hon John

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Pickles, Eric

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Horam, John

Powell, William (Corby)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Rathbone, Tim

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Richards, Rod

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Robathan, Andrew

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Hunter, Andrew

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jack, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jenkin, Bernard

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jessel, Toby

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Sackville, Tom

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shaw, David (Dover)

Key, Robert

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Knapman, Roger

Shersby, Michael

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Sims, Roger

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knox, Sir David

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Soames, Nicholas

Lament, Rt Hon Norman

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Legg, Barry

Spink, Dr Robert

Leigh, Edward

Spring, Richard

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Sproat, Iain

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lidington, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Steen, Anthony

Luff, Peter

Stephen, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stern, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Stewart, Allan

Maclean, David

Streeter, Gary

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sumberg, David

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sweeney, Walter

Madel, Sir David

Sykes, John

Maitland, Lady Olga

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Malone, Gerald

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

1125

Thomason, Roy

Waterson, Nigel

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Watts, John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Thurnham, Peter

Whitney, Ray

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Whittingdale, John

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Widdecombe, Ann

Tracey, Richard

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Tredinnick, David

Wilkinson, John

Trend, Michael

Willetts, David

Trotter, Neville

Wilshire, David

Twinn, Dr Ian

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Viggers, Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Yeo Tim

Walden, George

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Waller, Gary

Tellers for the Noes:

Ward, John

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 254.

Division No. 120]

[10.15pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Carttiss, Michael

Alexander, Richard

Cash, William

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Churchill, Mr

Amess, David

Clappison, James

Arbuthnot, James

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Ashby, David

Coe, Sebastian

Atkins, Robert

Congdon, David

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Conway, Derek

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Baldry, Tony

Couchman, James

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Cran, James

Bates, Michael

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

Batiste, Spencer

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Bellingham, Henry

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Bendall, Vivian

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Day, Stephen

Body, Sir Richard

Devlin, Tim

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Dicks, Terry

Booth, Hartley

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Boswell, Tim

Dover, Den

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Duncan, Alan

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Dunn, Bob

Bowis, John

Durant, Sir Anthony

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Dykes, Hugh

Brandreth, Gyles

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Brazier, Julian

Elletson, Harold

Bright, Sir Graham

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Budgen, Nicholas

Evennett, David

Burns, Simon

Faber, David

Burt, Alistair

Fabricant, Michael

Butcher, John

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Butler, Peter

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Fishburn, Dudley

1126

Forman, Nigel

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Luff, Peter

Forth, Eric

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

MacKay, Andrew

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Maclean, David

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

French, Douglas

Madel, Sir David

Fry, Sir Peter

Maitland, Lady Olga

Gale, Roger

Malone, Gerald

Gallie, Phil

Mans, Keith

Gardiner, Sir George

Marland, Paul

Gillan, Cheryl

Marlow, Tony

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gorst, Sir John

Mates, Michael

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Merchant, Piers

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mills, Iain

Grylls, Sir Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Hague, William

Moate, Sir Roger

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Monro, Sir Hector

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hampson, Dr Keith

Nelson, Anthony

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hannam, Sir John

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Harris, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hawkins, Nick

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hawksley, Warren

Norris, Steve

Hayes, Jerry

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Heald, Oliver

Oppenheim, Phillip

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Ottaway, Richard

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Page, Richard

Hendry, Charles

Paice, James

Hicks, Robert

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Pickles, Eric

Horam, John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Powell, William (Corby)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Richards, Rod

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Robathan, Andrew

Hunter, Andrew

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Robertson, Raymond (Abdn S)

Jack, Michael

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jenkin, Bernard

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jessel, Toby

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Sackville, Tom

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Key, Robert

Shaw, David (Dover)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Knapman, Roger

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shersby, Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Sims, Roger

Knox, Sir David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Soames, Nicholas

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Legg, Barry

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Leigh, Edward

Spink, Dr Robert

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Spring, Richard

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Sproat, Iain

Lidington, David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

1127

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Viggers, Peter

Steen, Anthony

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Stephen, Michael

Walden, George

Stem, Michael

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Stewart, Allan

Waller, Gary

Streeter, Gary

Ward, John

Sumberg, David

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sweeney, Walter

Waterson, Nigel

Sykes, John

Watts, John

Tapsell Sir Peter

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Whitney, Ray

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Whittingdale, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Widdecombe, Ann

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Thomason, Roy

Wilkinson, John

Willetts, David

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Wilshire, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Thumham, Peter

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Wolfson, Mark

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Wood, Timothy

Tracey, Richard

Yeo, Tim

Tredinnick, David

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Trend, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Tellers for the Ayes:

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Mr. Bowen Wells.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Corbett, Robin

Adams, Mrs Irene

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ainger, Nick

Corston, Jean

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cox, Tom

Allen, Graham

Cummings, John

Alton, David

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Armstrong, Hilary

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Austin-Walker, John

Dalyell, Tam

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Darling, Alistair

Barnes, Harry

Davidson, Ian

Barron, Kevin

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Bayley, Hugh

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

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

Bell, Stuart

Denham, John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dewar, Donald

Bennett, Andrew F

Dixon, Don

Bermingham, Gerald

Dobson, Frank

Berry, Roger

Donohoe, Brian H

Betts, Clive

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Blunkett, David

Eagle, Ms Angela

Boateng, Paul

Eastham, Ken

Bradley, Keith

Enright, Derek

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Etherington, Bill

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

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Burden, Richard

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Byers, Stephen

Fatchett, Derek

Caborn, Richard

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Callaghan, Jim

Fisher, Mark

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Flynn, Paul

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Campbell-Savours, D N

Foster, Don (Bath)

Canavan, Dennis

Foulkes, George

Cann, Jamie

Fraser, John

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Fyfe, Maria

Chidgey, David

Galbraith, Sam

Church, Judith

Galloway, George

Clapham, Michael

Gapes, Mike

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Gerrard, Neil

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Clelland, David

Godman, Dr Norman A

Coffey, Ann

Godsiff, Roger

Cohen, Harry

Graham, Thomas

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

1128

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Meale, Alan

Grocott, Bruce

Michael, Alun

Gunnell, John

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hain, Peter

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Hall, Mike

Milburn, Alan

Hanson, David

Miller, Andrew

Harman, Ms Harriet

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Harvey, Nick

Morgan, Rhodri

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Morley, Elliot

Henderson, Doug

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Heppell, John

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hinchliffe, David

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hodge, Margaret

Mudie, George

Hoey, Kate

Mullin, Chris

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Murphy, Paul

Home Robertson, John

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hood, Jimmy

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Hoon, Geoffrey

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Olner, Bill

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

O'Neill, Martin

Hoyle, Doug

Parry, Robert

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pearson, Ian

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Pickthall, Colin

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Pike, Peter L

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Pope, Greg

Hutton, John

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Illsley, Eric

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Ingram, Adam

Primarolo, Dawn

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Purchase, Ken

Janner, Greville

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Radice, Giles

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Randall, Stuart

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Raynsford, Nick

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Redmond, Martin

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Reid, Dr John

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Rendel, David

Jowell, Tessa

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Keen, Alan

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Rogers, Allan

Khabra, Piara S

Rooker, Jeff

Kilfoyle, Peter

Rooney, Terry

Kirkwood, Archy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Lewis, Terry

Ruddock, Joan

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Sheerman, Barry

Litherland, Robert

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Livingstone, Ken

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Short, Clare

Llwyd, Elfyn

Simpson, Alan

Loyden, Eddie

Skinner, Dennis

Lynne, Ms Liz

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McAllion, John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McAvoy, Thomas

Snape, Peter

McCartney, Ian

Soley, Clive

Macdonald, Calum

Spearing, Nigel

McFall, John

Spellar, John

McKelvey, William

Stevenson, George

Mackinlay, Andrew

Stott, Roger

McLeish, Henry

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Maclennan, Robert

Straw, Jack

McMaster, Gordon

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McNamara, Kevin

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

MacShane, Denis

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

McWilliam, John

Timms, Stephen

Madden, Max

Tipping, Paddy

Maddock, Diana

Touhig, Don

Mahon, Alice

Turner, Dennis

Mandelson, Peter

Tyler, Paul

Marek, Dr John

Vaz, Keith

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Wallace, James

Martlew, Eric

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Maxton, John

Wareing, Robert N

Meacher, Michael

Wicks, Malcolm

1129

Wigley, Dafydd

Wray, Jimmy

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Wilson, Brian

Tellers for the Noes:

Wise, Audrey

Mr. Jim Dowd and

Worthington, Tony

Mr. Joe Benton.

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the substantial increase in the real level of education spending since 1979; notes that in a tough settlement overall local authorities will still be able to spend more next year than in 1994–95; looks to them to set sensible priorities; welcomes the substantial improvement in standards of achievement by pupils in recent years, as demonstrated by examination and test results and by school inspection reports; and applauds the Governments education policies which are further driving up education standards, and giving parents more choice and information for the benefit of their children.

WAYS AND MEANS

  Atomic Energy Authority Bill
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges to corporation tax by provisions relating to the transfer of property, rights and liabilities of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in accordance with schemes under the Act.—[Mr. Page.]

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matter relating exclusively to Scotland),

  PRISONS
  That the draft Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (Release of Prisoners etc.) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.
  That the draft Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 (Release of Prisoners etc.) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

Drugs and Appliances
10.27 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 643), dated 8th March 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be annulled.
Opposition Members are not here solely to voice our opposition to this savage increase in taxes on the sick; we are here to give Conservative Members a chance to speak for their constituents, and to defeat the proposal. We want to hear from the Government why they are pushing through this increase, this year.
It is clear beyond doubt that, throughout all their years in office, the Government have pursued a policy of milking prescription charges as fully as they dare. Despite what the Daily Mail claimed was a pledge not to increase prescription charges, the process began with a whopping increase of 125 per cent. in the very first months of the Governments life in office. That was followed by a rise of 55 per cent. in 1980.
In fact, since the Conservative Governments election in 1979, in only two years—the boom years of 1988 and 1989—has the increase in the prescription charge been about the same as the rate of inflation. In every other year the charge has risen by massively more than the inflation rate: there was an increase of 25 per cent. in 1984–85—conveniently after the general election—four times more than the then rate of inflation, which had risen by 6.9 per cent. In the following years, increases averaged two to three times the rate of inflation, but since 1992 and the last general election we have again seen increases massively ahead of inflation.
The increase was 10.3 per cent. in 1991–92, when the inflation rate was 1.3 per cent. It was 11.8 per cent. in April 1992–93, when the inflation rate was 2.6 per cent. The regulations would raise prescription charges 10.5 per cent.—three times the current rate of inflation. If the price of bread had increased at the same rate as prescriptions, a loaf would cost £8.08. A pint of milk would cost £3.78. The proposed charges bear no relation to average price rises but bear a close relation to a secretive, undeclared tax on the sick—only on them, and levied only because they are sick.
Those spoils—that loot—is being extracted from the sick by overcharging, in half of all cases, for the medicines sold. We know that that is true because the Secretary of State herself admitted that daylight robbery. Answering a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) last December, the right hon. Lady said that in 55 per cent. of cases the total cost to the NHS of a prescription item was less than the proposed charge of £5.25.
Given that charges have increased way ahead of inflation and in many cases are providing a profit for the Treasury, they are not just a tax but a fiscal mugging. It is the kind of criminal offence that Dolly Rawlings, the powerful widow of gangland fame, would utterly deplore. The Dolly Rawlings of the Department of Health, however, is just the kind of mugger who gives crime and taxation such a bad name.
Mr. John Marshall: No doubt the right hon. Lady read the article in The Economist last

1131
weekend which suggested that she does not have a policy on health. What would the right hon. Lady do with prescription charges? Would she get rid of them?
Mrs. Beckett: I did not read that article in The Economist. Obviously it would have been a waste of time.
Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Lady should have read it.
Mrs. Beckett: Well, clearly it did not convey much information to the hon. Gentleman, so it seems that it was not worth reading. Our approach to prescription charges has been stated repeatedly in the House. We believe that the whole system of prescription charges should be subject to a thoroughgoing review. The system has huge absurdities. It is crystal clear—not just from statements made from the Dispatch Box but from the record of past Labour Governments—that we never have and never would use prescription charges as a tax on the sick, in the way that the Government have done since 1979.
The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): A Labour Government introduced them.
Mrs. Beckett: That is not true. I know that the Prime Minister made that claim at the Dispatch Box two or three days ago, but the Minister should know better than to believe anything said by his right hon. Friend at Prime Ministers Question Time. A Conservative Government introduced prescription charges—
Mr. Malone indicated assent.
Mrs. Beckett: So the Minister knew that his remark was not true. A Conservative Government introduced prescription charges, not a Labour Government. I hope that we have nailed that lie.
Ministers are quick to argue that the level of charges is unimportant because 80 per cent. of prescriptions are dispensed free. That creates the impression—as I am sure it is intended to do—that only 20 per cent. of people pay, and then only those who can afford to pay. As always when it comes to tax, Ministers are being at least economical with the truth. The latest figures for 1993 show that no fewer than 50 per cent. of the population are liable to pay prescription charges.
It is not true that all vulnerable people are exempt. Ministers list pensioners, children, people on income support, pregnant women and people with certain specific conditions. However, the Library calculates that if one excludes the only two groups who are completely exempt—pensioners and children—85 per cent. of the remaining population are liable to pay. The overwhelming majority of men and women, whatever their income or family circumstances, are liable. People whose incomes are low enough to receive council tax benefit are not thereby exempt. Those in receipt of invalidity benefit—who by definition are long-term sick or disabled—are not exempt. Asthmatics and people suffering from cystic fibrosis are among those with long-term illness who have to pay for their prescribed medication. So do patients with AIDS, motor neurone disease, asthma, multiple sclerosis,
1132
chronic rheumatoid arthritis, leukaemia, breast cancer, emphysema and renal failure, to name but a few. All are liable to pay prescription charges.
Mr. Malone: Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking to the House today that she would include them in the list of exemptions if she ever had the opportunity to do so?
Mrs. Beckett: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to a thorough review, precisely because of the issue that he raises. There are huge numbers of people, some with diseases only relatively recently identified, but not one of whom has been added to the list. So far as I know, none of them has even been considered by the Government for adding to the list. The Governments policy is clear: huge increases in prescription charges, and no consideration of the addition of any of these groups.
The Minister knows perfectly well that the British Medical Association is calling for the kind of review that we advocate. First, there is a need to reconsider the list of those who are exempt, and the conditions that are included. Secondly, there is a need to look into the question of a person with one condition getting all their prescriptions free. These are serious and important issues which deserve careful consideration by the medical profession. That is what the medical profession wants, and what we would provide. The professsion does not want what the Minister is doing; it opposes it root and branch.
Mr. Malone rose—
Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister have a serious point to make?
Mr. Malone: Yes.
Mrs. Beckett: That will make a change.
Mr. Malone: I thought from the reaction of the House that my last point to the right hon. Lady was serious. When these matters were last looked at, on 21 March 1968, when a Labour Government were in power, the BMA set down the exemption conditions. Is the right hon. Lady telling the House that the BMA has come to her with a list to add to the exemptions laid down back then? If she is not, this debate is dishonest.
Mrs. Beckett: That is rubbish. Certainly the BMA was involved in the discussion of the list in 1968, but is the Minister suggesting that nothing has changed since then? How many people had AIDS in 1968? How many children had asthma then? What were the charges? What was the treatment available then, and how essential was it to peoples well-being?
A huge number of things have changed since 1968, but what has changed most is the prescription charge under the Conservative Government. Under the Labour Government, it did not increase by so much as one penny. Under the Conservatives, it has gone through the roof. And all the time Ministers refuse to look at new kinds of treatment, at new concerns which arise, and at a range of issues which the professionals believe deserve re-examination.
What is more, charges at the level that the regulations propose can be clinically damaging. I do not refer only to those who cannot, because of their incomes, afford to pay all their prescriptions, though they are a growing group. I spoke recently to a GP who explained that he had a patient

1133
who was acutely depressed, who had just lost her job and who was extremely anxious about her financial position. It was likely that she would need to be on anti-depressants for some time. Because of the womans financial position, the doctor would have preferred to give her one long-term prescription, but because she was a suicide risk he dared not recommend more than a weeks supply. Regular weekly prescriptions at a regular weekly charge are increasing her costs, adding to her anxiety and damaging her chances of a speedy recovery.
Another patient, with an eye infection, was given a prescription that she did not collect because she could not afford it. A few days later she returned to her doctor with her eye in a much worse condition. He was so horrified at what had happened that he paid for the drug himself.
The BMA says today that, with each appalling rise in prescription charges, doctors are concerned that more and more patients will be dissuaded from visiting their surgeries at all. All GPs and pharmacists have anecdotal evidence of patients asking which of two or more items on a prescription form are the most important because they cannot afford to pay for more than one at a time.
It is crystal clear that this is a tax, that many more are liable to pay it than Ministers pretend, and that among those are large numbers of people who cannot afford to pay, including many who cannot afford to pay so much precisely because they are long-term or chronically sick. I have little doubt that the Minister of State will claim—as Ministers always claim—that there is no alternative, especially as next year they expect to raise £310 million from the charge. Almost a third of that could be found instead by abolishing the subsidy on private health insurance, which cost the Revenue £95 million last year. The Government could have held back the £100 million to £120 million that they spent on the legal costs, the logos, the uniforms and the PR that went with the structural changes in their so-called health reforms. There are a number of ways in which they could have economised on the £1.3 billion that is estimated as the overall total costs of the changes.
In other words, the Government are not forced to raise all the money in this way. The sheer scale on which the Government cheat the sick is demonstrated by one simple comparison. If, as the then Mrs. Thatcher indicated in 1979, they had increased prescription charges only in line with inflation, the charge today would be 53p instead of £5.25. In other words, 90 per cent. of the charge that we are debating is down to deliberate Government tax raising.
The Conservatives are the tax-raising party. In these weeks, we are seeing increases in income tax, increases in water charges, increases in prescription charges—every one of them in stark contradiction to the pledges, the promises and the programme that the Government put before the people of Britain. They are dishonest. They are deceitful. They should depart.
10.41 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I am astonished that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who has had a considerable time to reflect on these matters—as has her party over the past 16 years or so, or even longer because it was the Labour party that reintroduced prescription charges in 1968—comes to the House tonight and criticises what the Government are saying, and then simply promises a review. The truth of the
1134
matter is that she understands, as I think the whole House does, that we have these debates every year, usually in relatively heated circumstances, but nobody from the Opposition Benches is ever able to suggest what should replace the prescription charges that the Government have put in place on a fair basis to increase the amount of money that is spent on health care in this country.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: We need a review first.
Mr. Malone: If it takes Labour Members 16 years to work out what the review and the decisions of that review should be, I hope that the whole House will note that the right hon. Lady had not a single substitute to put in place for the benefits that prescription charges provide for the population of this country.
Each year we have to make careful judgments about how the resources of the NHS should best be spent, so that we can continue to provide the highest standard of patient care. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently reminded the House, surveys of patients show high satisfaction rates with the NHS, and broadly we have a record that I believe that we can be proud of.
Mrs. Beckett: Those are characteristically accurate statistics from the Prime Minister. Of course, what he does not point out is that levels of satisfaction may be slightly higher now than they were two or three years ago, but they are substantially lower than they were 10 years ago, before these reforms.
Mr. Malone: If the right hon. Lady looks at the British social attitudes survey, she will see precisely how satisfaction has increased in recent years, and it is something for which the Government take a great deal of credit. I did not hear many Opposition voices saying that resources are not an important matter. To make the best use of available resources, successive Governments have taken the view that those who can afford it should pay for prescriptions, thereby making an important contribution.
I remind the right hon. Member for Derby, South that it was a Labour Government who in 1949 first took powers to introduce prescription charges. They introduced the first NHS charges in 1951, and a Labour Government abolished them in 1965, only to reintroduce them in 1968.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What do I tell my constituents who come to my surgery and say that they simply cannot afford to pay prescription charges?
Mr. Malone: What I shall say to the hon. Gentleman is that I will now deal with a point that I had intended to deal with later. It is that no pensioner, no child and no student up to the age of 18 pays prescription charges. There is a low-income scheme. Prescription charges are sensible and people who can afford to pay them make a contribution to British health care. What is the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party about replacing prescription charges? I shall be delighted to give way to him.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I and all my hon. Friends think that we need a total review. That is absolutely right, and we shall have it and have sensible conclusions as a result.
Mr. Malone: The one certainty that I have noticed in my occasional appearances at the Dispatch Box is the

1135
repeated Opposition cry of, Lets have a review. There are more reviews in the Opposition than ever appear in the Evening Standard theatre section.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: The Minister repeatedly mocks the idea of a review of prescription charges. Is he aware that the Select Committee on Health, which has a majority of Conservative Members, has called for a review? The Committees recommendation stated:
We therefore recommend that there should be a review of prescription charges and the current exemption categories.
In her response to that the Secretary of State for Health promised to examine the potential for change. The Ministers Department has agreed to a review. When will it take place?
Mr. Malone: There is a great deal of difference between what the hon. Gentleman says and what his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South said earlier. The right hon. Lady has absolutely no solution to filling the gap that would be left by the loss of the £310 million which contributes to greater patient care. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I cannot hear the Minister. I wish to hear him and I do not want sedentary interruptions from what sounds like overgrown schoolboys.
Mr. Malone: I shall remind the House of what the £310 million would pay for. It would pay for 75,000 hip replacements or 235,000 cataract operations. Where would the right hon. Member for Derby, South find that money if not from those who can afford a modest charge?
I shall now deal with the whole question of the cost of prescriptions. Increases in prescription charges have never been linked to inflation. The Government believe that it is reasonable to ask those who can afford to pay charges to do so. There is no firm evidence that charges deter people from getting the medication that they need.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the Minister tell the House what percentage of prescription items cost less than £5?
Mr. Malone: The average cost of a prescription is approximately 55 per cent. of the real cost of the drugs that are provided. That is the important point. That statistic is used because people use a mixture of prescriptions. Over the course of a year, it is right to consider not specific items, but the average cost because that is what the taxpayer is supplementing. It is as clear as it ever has been that prescription charges are good value for money when the cost is averaged out. It is reasonable to ask people who can afford to pay to do so.
As I said to the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) the charge is related not to a particular item but to an average. That is an extremely important point to bear in mind. I am aware of the fact that a number of items cost less than the prescription charge. That is and always has been the case. That was the position when charges were reintroduced by the Labour party in 1968.
The charge is a flat rate. To have something akin to banded charges, or charges directly related to the cost of individual items, would be costly to operate and would not in the least be cost-effective. There are occasions when people are able to buy a prescription item over the counter
1136
at a cheaper price. They are free to do so. Many people do not know what sort of medication they need until they see the doctor, so it is not surprising that that happens.
Purchase of over-the-counter medicines for the minor ailments which form the bulk of illness is in line with the strategy in The Health of the Nation. People should take more responsibility for their health, in consultation with their general practitioners and pharmacists. Other items need to be prescribed.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Why will not the Government allow general practitioners to write private prescriptions for items that cost less than £5.25?
Mr. Malone: GPs may do that. Nothing prevents them from issuing private prescriptions. Undoubtedly, they may wish to make a charge on that, or, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, the pharmacist may charge a fee when the drug is dispensed. There is no question about that. There is no reason why that arrangement cannot be entered into.
I turn to exemption and remission arrangements. It is vital that hon. Members recognise what those are. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has often said to the House, we have the most generous exemption arrangements in Europe. More than 80 per cent. of prescription items are dispensed free, compared with 60 per cent. when the Government came to power in 1979. Only 42 per cent. were dispensed free in 1968 when the Labour party were in government and reintroduced charges.
It is important to remind the House about the arrangements. No child, pregnant woman or pensioner has to pay for their prescriptions. People on low incomes, such as income support and family credit, also receive free prescriptions, as do those entitled to full help under the national health service low income scheme. From 1 April, people receiving disability working allowance, who had capital of £8,000 or less when they made their claim, will receive free prescriptions. We are protecting people who are most vulnerable. People with certain chronic medical conditions who need regular or expensive medication also get their prescriptions free, and it is our intention to maintain that position.
We will not reduce an exempt list that has endured since it was first introduced in 1968 by Labour. I know that no change has been made in recent years, but the Government do not intend to extend the list because to do so would benefit only those whose income was above the level of qualifying for help on low income grounds, and an extended list would have to be agreed with the medical profession, which made it clear in 1968 that it would agree only to readily identifiable conditions needing lifelong medication. Nothing has occurred to change that up to now.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend the Minister is delivering a speech that needs to be heeded by all parties. He is presenting some relevant facts and statistics, but is he aware that some Conservative Members believe that a number of lifelong illnesses such as cystic fibrosis merit free prescriptions and being included in the exempt list of illnesses that require considerable medication? In the light of recent experiences and some of the views that have been expressed, would the Government perhaps consider exempting such diseases?
Mr. Malone: My hon. Friends point highlights the dilemma that faced those who had to reach this conclusion

1137
in 1968. An agreement that would endure was needed then. It is difficult to include other categories of diseases in the exempt list for the simple reason that it is difficult to get a consensus in the medical profession about the very definitions of the sort of illnesses alluded to by my hon. Friend. The questions that were examined in great depth in 1968 with the British Medical Association resulted in an important list of exemptions that we shall not revise or revisit.
Mr. Eric Illsley: That was 30 years ago.
Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman says that it was 30 years ago, but a number of the diseases and problems to which many hon. Members refer were well known in those days. The medical profession at the time considered that they did not fall into the category that required exemption. That is a consensus that the Government do not intend to disturb.
Mr. John Greenway: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Minister is saying. The shallowness and hollowness of the Labour party's call for a review is clear in that the party has not a word to say about what it would do. What most annoys my constituents and, I dare say, many of my hon. Friends constituents, is that some people have to pay an increasing amount but many pay nothing at all. There may not be a review just yet, but will my hon. Friend consider the important problem of the waste of medicines? People who do not pay for them are not being encouraged to use them sensibly. What most annoys those who face the higher charge is that many people pay nothing.
Mr. Malone: I shall respond directly to my hon. Friends point about the proper use and waste of medicines. We are moving towards original pack dispensing with a more educational form of drug use, which is extremely important. Yes, as my hon. Friend suggested, it is important that when drugs are prescribed and dispensed they are used properly. Moves are being made in the right direction. It is widely recognised that the effectiveness of therapy is often connected with the proper use of drugs over time.
There are many other ways in which fairness is brought to bear in considering prescription charges. For example, prepayment certificates can be of enormous benefit to those who require therapy over time. I am delighted to say that those certificates are available on a basis which allows tremendous and quite dramatic savings to people who require regular prescriptions. On average, those who have a prepayment certificate can save over the period that the certificate is valid some £100 or so if they are on an average dose of drugs.
We have this debate on a regular basis. If the Opposition were providing an alternative to what we do—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We are.
Mr. Malone: Well, they are offering a review yet again. To the people in Britain who benefit from the additional cash that comes into the health service on a direct basis and receive the additional benefits of all that because of our procedures, the response of the Labour party is hollow. It protests much, but it knows little about
1138
what to do. It has no alternative to what is being put forward. It promises a review after having looked at this problem for 16 years. It is a hollow promise.
We have fair arrangements which are firmly in place to ensure that those who can afford to contribute towards the cost of drugs that they receive do so and thereby provide benefits for patient care elsewhere in the health service. It is a proper policy. It is the right policy and the House will recognise tonight that the Labour party has no policy.
11.1 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: We have heard the word review bandied about a lot tonight in what I suppose may be regarded as the late-night revue on prescription charges. On one hand, we were reminded that the Secretary of State has said that she will keep prescription charges under review. On the other, we have heard that the Labour party is going to have a review of the whole system of prescription charges.
The Government have raised prescription charges way beyond inflation on the basis of the excuse that the charges have never had anything to do with inflation. That is arguing from a position of least advantage against the least advantaged, and the Minister knows it very well.
The Labour party says that it does not yet know what it will do about prescription charges. It would have been helpful—I agree with the Minister to this extent—if the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) had been able to tell us, for example, that she thought that prescription charges should not be raised. It would have been helpful if, for example, she had said what I believe to be the case—it has been my party's policy for a considerable time—that taxes on tobacco could be higher.
If one applied a hypothecated system of taxation to the national health service, the money that could be raised by increasing tobacco taxes could be applied to keeping prescription charges down to a reasonable level, not more than they are now. The many elderly people who now have to pay for eye tests could be spared. Many who are reaching the stage at which they have to change their spectacles frequently could be excused from paying for eye tests.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: No I shall not.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Come on.
Mr. Carlile: I shall give way—possibly—in a moment. I do not want to speak for a long time. In reality, the Government have converted prescription charges into a health tax. Prescription charges were never concealed—
Sir Norman Fowler: The Liberals would not lower charges.
Mr. Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman is interrupting from a sedentary position rather more energetically than we are used to from him. A late night away from the family I see. He and the Minister know very well that prescription charges were not introduced as a tax. They were introduced as a way in which to obtain a small contribution to offset the cost of the national health service.

1139
It is very important that the Government should now be honest about the whole basis on which prescription charges are levied. Is the Minister saying that the charges are intended to offset the cost of prescriptions, or that they are a way of raising money for the Government coffers—that they represent simply a general contribution to the Governments tax collection system?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me by how much he thinks that the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes should rise?
Mr. Carlile: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, my party has said that the tax on a packet of cigarettes should rise by at least double the rate of inflation each year.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Why?
Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman intervenes from a sedentary position.
Mr. Winterton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: No, I heard what the hon. Gentleman asked. The answer to his question is: because smoking is extremely unhealthy and costs the national health service an immense sum, and because those who, possibly like the hon. Gentleman, enjoy their pipe or cigar—perhaps he enjoys a King Edward cigar—would be prepared to pay the extra money rather than give up.
Mr. Winterton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: No I shall not, because this is a short debate and we should concentrate on prescription charges.
The Minister should tell the House the basis upon which the Government levy prescription charges. Are they a tax or merely a modest subvention?
Mr. Malone rose—
Mr. Carlile: I shall give way to the Minister if he will answer the question.
Mr. Malone: A prescription charge is a modest subvention; it is certainly not a tax. The charges represent a very small proportion of the health service budget, and are levied on those who can afford to pay. They are a contribution to health care, in addition to the record sums that the Government are already spending on the health service.
Mr. Carlile: The Minister has deliberately failed to answer the specific question. However, he has made it clear that in his view the charges are a tax on health, not a subvention on prescriptions. They represent a way of trying to get many people who cannot afford to do so to pay an extra impost to line the Governments coffers so that they can cut taxes at a later stage.
The Minister knows that his claim to rely on opinion polls and reviews of public attitudes towards the health service is not based on a single question about public satisfaction or otherwise with prescription charges. I challenge the Government to ask the public whether they approve of a prescription charge of £5.25. Of course they would not dare to ask that question, because they know what the answer would be.
1140
The Government spend a lot of time complaining about scroungers. Yet, incomprehensibly, this tax is aimed at the very people whom the Government believe might, in a mad moment, vote for them. It is a tax on taxpayers. We know that many people are exempt from prescription charges, but how do the Government justify to the parents of the children who are exempt, the children of the pensioners who are exempt, and the carers who pay their taxes, a prescription charge increase at three times the rate of inflation?
How do the Government justify to doctors and pharmacists the fact that they must act as tax collectors for the Government? That is what happens with prescription charges. How do the Government justify their ignorance, and especially the Ministers ignorance, of what happens in doctors surgeries? Does he really believe that if ones general practitioner says, If I could give you a private prescription you could have the drug for £3 not £5, he or she is entitled to write a private prescription? That is not what GPs think that they are entitled to do. If the Minister approves of the practice he should say so tonight, because many GPs believe that they can not do that. Indeed, I was so advised today by those who represent the doctors. It is an important point, and I challenge the Minister to tell us whether that is the case. I am willing to give way to the Minister, as it is a simple question. Can GPs give their patients an NHS prescription for part of the drugs which they are prescribing and, on the same occasion—
Mr. Malone indicated dissent.
Mr. Carlile: The Minister is now changing his mind and revealing his true ignorance. Earlier, he was suggesting that that was the case. Now, I understand him to be saying that the Government refuse to allow doctors to enable their patients to save money by giving private prescriptions on individual items costing less than £5.25. If that is the situation, why will the Minister not change that regulation and allow doctors to serve their patients with the best health care and also to assist in their economic interests when prescribing drugs?
Mr. Nicholas Brown: The position is that the British Medical Association wants the word shall in the GP contract to be changed to the word may to give GPs some discretion. In other words, it wants the Minister to review the situation.
Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I received the same briefing from the BMA, which made the situation clear. The Minister should have known that, and should not have tried to cloud the issue when he intervened. He has been a Minister for long enough, and as such he has been energetic enough, to know the answer to a simple question such as that by now. It is simply a fraud on the public. The Government are using as the innocent tools of their fraud the hard-working GPs and pharmacists who are hard-pressed seeing patients every day.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was under the impression that extremely skilled pharmacists can advise patients to have something that is not on their prescriptions if they think that it would help patients.
Mr. Carlile: The hon. Lady is right—pharmacists do that all the time—but she is missing the point. There are many drugs which pharmacists cannot sell across the counter, and that raises my next point. Surely the time has come when we must have a close look at the system which

1141
operates in France, where it is possible to buy far more drugs across the counter. There is no evidence that health in France has been significantly damaged by that. For example, why should not some antibiotics be available across the counter? That is one example of the many drugs which might fall into that category.
These new regulations impose a tax on the public.
Mr. Malone rose—
Mr. Carlile: If the Minister wants to intervene, I shall of course allow him to do so. But will he now tell the House whether he is prepared to review the regulations so that GPs may give private prescriptions for drugs costing less than £5.25 at the same time as prescribing drugs which cost more than £5.25?
Mr. Malone: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that GPs may well give such a prescription for a drug, but somebody who goes to have that drug dispensed may find that there is a charge for doing so. There is a balance in every case, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows.
The point of my intervention is that the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that prescription charges are a tax. I put to him the question that I put to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who failed to address it. I have listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech with care. How would his party replace that £310 million? Would he get rid of prescription charges? What pledges will he give to the House tonight on the subject?
Mr. Carlile: The Minister should have been listening earlier. Did he not see his hon. Friend, the smoker from Macclesfield, getting excited about the Liberal Democrats policy on the issue?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is telling the House an untruth. I do not smoke and I never have smoked. I was telling the House that the tobacco tax brings the Exchequer about £9 billion a year and that the cost to the health service is about £1 billion a year. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman apologise for his allegation?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a point of information.
Mr. Carlile: I shall certainly withdraw. I must say that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) misled me by his enthusiasm into the belief that he must occasionally have a quiet weed somewhere near Black Rods car park.
The Minister has intervened three or four times but has failed to answer a basic question. Why do the Government allow patients to be ripped off by having to pay more for the cost of drugs because they have an NHS prescription? That is not fair and the regulations are not fair. The Government have an unfair attitude. They know that the regulations are hitting some extremely poor families.
11.15 pm
Mr. John Marshall: On these occasions we hear ritualistic speeches. None was more ritualistic than the praise of France by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). He told us that
1142
France was wonderful but chose not to tell the House that in France, unlike in the United Kingdom, not all pensioners are exempt from prescription charges. He might have told the House that in France pensioners have to pay boarding charges when they go into hospital. That is the society that the hon. and learned Gentleman was praising.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be dangerous to adopt the policy proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and dispense antibiotics over the counter? Chemists do not have the medical records of their customers and they should not dispense antibiotics. Their customers would build up an immunity to antibiotics, and they would then be of no use to them.
Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend is right. If someone does not have access to the medical records of the patient, it would be wrong of him or her to prescribe antibiotics across the counter.
On these occasions we hear a great deal of synthetic indignation from the Labour party. The sincerity of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) can be judged from the fact that last year she was an even more prominent member of the Labour party. Did she decide to table a prayer against an increase of 11.8 per cent. in prescription charges? That was a slightly higher increase in percentage terms than this years.
The right hon. Lady did not table such a prayer. Why is she so angry this year when she was so silent last year? Is she trying to hide the fact that she has no policy on health? The right hon. Lady is no longer in her place. I do not know where she is. Perhaps she has gone to read The Economist of last Friday, which contained an article headed Labours health policy: Improvising. It is suggested that the Labour party lacks a coherent strategy on health. It added that the Labour shadow health spokesmen were like a group of frightened rabbits.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to a frightened bunny rabbit?
Mr. Marshall: Yes.
Mr. Brown: That is very good of him.
I enjoy The Economist. It is a good magazine until it writes about something of which I have knowledge.
Mr. Marshall: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was the member of the Opposition Front-Bench team who is reputed to have said, If we are ahead without a policy, why do we need one?
We have heard this evening a great pledge by the Labour party that, if it wins the election, it will have a thoroughgoing review. So at the next election we shall hear the slogan, Vote Labour for more Royal Commissions. Vote Labour for more reviews.
On one occasion, the Labour party was accused of offering the British people a menu without prices. On this occasion, it will be a menu without products and without prices, and both will be filled in after the election. What a load of stuff and nonsense.
Mr. Bayley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that VAT on fuel was rather like a menu without prices or items on it?
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What has that got to do with this?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many seated comments, and very few of them seem to have any value whatever.
Mr. Marshall: That did seem to be one of the less relevant comments that we have heard this evening.
Let us consider the history of prescription charges. Some Members in the House remember the 1964 general election campaign, during which the Labour party said that it would abolish prescription charges. It did, but it did not promise at that election that it would reintroduce them at a higher level than it had inherited, so that, by the time of the 1970 general election, prescription charges were two and sixpence per item instead of the two bob per form that prevailed in 1964. By the end of the first Wilson Government, prescription charges were greater than when he came into office in 1964.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South fought the 1974 general election. She should read the 1974 Labour general election manifesto. It said:
Revise and expand the NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE.
Promise No. 1: abolish prescription charges. What happened? Labour did not abolish prescription charges. Perhaps that is why, at the most recent general election, the Labour party did not even mention prescription charges. It did not say whether it would abolish them, reduce them or have a thoroughgoing review. In the document Health 2000 there was no mention of them either. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am extremely tired of these rather stupid sedentary interventions. I am making a special note of those who engage in them. The next time that they want to catch my eye to make a speech, they may find that I am rather blind.
Mr. Marshall: Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be very difficult to be blind to some hon. Members in the House, but I am sure that we wish you good luck in your attempts to do so.
We have to remember, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, that prescription charges cover no more than 10 per cent. of the total drugs budget. He reminded us that the revenue from prescription charges would pay for 75,000 hip replacement operations and that 80 per cent. of prescriptions are exempt. He might have told us, if he had been trying to make partisan points, that the level of exemptions for prescription charges in Britain is much more generous than that in other countries of the European Union. He might have said, for example—
Mr. Illsley: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he skipped from the 1974 general election to the 1992 general election. He said that in 1974, the Labour party committed itself to abolishing prescription charges. Will he tell us what the charges were in 1974, or indeed in 1979, when a Labour Government committed themselves to abolishing those charges? Was it not something of the order of 20p? If those charges had been increased at the rate of inflation, we would be talking now of abolishing a charge of 53p rather than £5.25.
Mr. Marshall: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that the rate of inflation in recent years has been very low—very much
1144
lower than it was under the most recent Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman admits that the Labour party made a promise in 1974; he admits that it did not keep that promise.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: What did Mrs. Thatcher say in 1979?
Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Lady Baroness Thatcher said in 1979 that she would improve the quality of the health service, and that is what has happened. She promised that more people would be treated; more people are being treated. She promised that waiting lists would decrease; they are decreasing. We kept our promises, and the money from prescription charges has helped to improve the quality of service given to the people of the country. The Labour party should welcome that fact.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: The hon. Gentleman said that people are being treated much better by the national health service. A 70-year-old constituent of mine was recently taken to hospital at 3 am with a heart complaint. He was sent home alone in a taxi at 6 am and taken back to hospital at 8 am where he died at 10 am. That is the kind of service that has been provided since the trusts have taken over. It is a greyhound service and we could fill Hampden park in Scotland with the people who have been sent home and have then returned to hospital.
Mr. Marshall: My sister worked for the NHS in Scotland for many years, and the case to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) refers is not typical of the NHS in Scotland or England. It is an insult to the devoted people who work for the NHS to point out the mistakes that occur when the majority of those who are treated by the NHS welcome the treatment that they receive.
I conducted a survey in my constituency in which we asked the questions: have you recently been treated by the NHS and, if so, were you satisfied with that treatment? Those who had received treatment, almost to a man and to a woman, said that they were satisfied with it.
Mr. Thomas Graham: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He referred to the situation in Scotland. Does he know that the Royal Alexander trust hospital recently charged a 12-year-old American who was suffering from a sore stomach £800 for a 36-hour visit to that hospital? Yet the private hospital up the road would have charged £237. Is that not a case of privatisation through the back door? In the end, the people will suffer. Prescription prices are rising so high that, at the end of the day, people will have to treat themselves, as they will not be able to get into trust hospitals.
Mr. Marshall: I think that our remarks are ranging far wider than the scope of the debate. The hon. Gentleman referred to an American who was treated in a Scottish hospital. The charges that that parent paid to the hospital are a fraction of what he would have paid if his child had fallen ill in the United States of America.
Labour Members should tell us—they will not do so in this debate or, I suspect, in any other debates before the election—whether they intend to increase spending on the national health service. If they intend to abolish or restrict prescription charges, how would they pay for the net

1145
impact of that loss of income? Would not the Labour partys vendetta against private medicine put a great strain upon the health service?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now ranging rather wider than the subject matter of the debate tonight. His remarks must relate to prescription charges.
Mr. Marshall: What impact would the Labour party's policy—which I understand that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) unveiled to a surprised audience in the City recently—of imposing value added tax on private health care have upon the health service, the cost of drugs and therefore the cost of prescriptions? That would clearly restrict the number of people who use private health care and it would force more people into the prescription net.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: That is not our policy, and we could not pursue it, even if some Labour Members wanted to, as the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) knows very well.
Mr. Marshall: It seems that, when the frightened rabbits go to the City and find that a thoroughgoing review is not enough, they make up policy on the hoof and they get it wrong. It is no wonder that Labour Members are like frightened rabbits.
Finally, we would like to know whether a national minimum wage would do anything other than hurt the health service because many of those who work for it—
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) tries my patience. He must return to the subject of prescription charges or sit down.
Mr. Marshall: I will return briefly to the subject of prescription charges to say that they provide £310 million of income for the national health service. They allow the provision of extra services and the exemptions in this country are more generous than in any other European Union country.
11.29 pm
Mr. Hugh Bayley: It is a shame that the pharmaceutical industry has not yet developed a pill for bunkum and hogwash because it would have been in order this evening, given the myths peddled by Conservative Members. Both the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and the Minister came out with the myth that the most generous prescription scheme in Europe is ours in the United Kingdom.
When the Select Committee on Health was taking evidence on the NHS drugs budget we were told at paragraph 882 of the report:
Holland does not have a prescription charge.
Who was the source of that subversive nugget of information? It was none other than the then Minister for Health.
In an intervention earlier, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) asked the Minister why a GP cannot prescribe privately items which cost less than £5.25, the cost of a prescription, and the Minister replied that a GP can do that.
1146
In paragraph 216 of our report we made the following recommendation to the Government:
We recommend that the Government introduce a system whereby the pharmacist may dispense an item privately if the cost of the product prescribed is less than the NHS prescription charge.
The Government response was:
The Government notes the Committees views and will examine the potential for change..
They are still examining the potential for change and they have not yet pronounced. It is part of a review that the Government are currently conducting.
The Minister said that there was no evidence whatever that high prescription charges deter people from getting the drugs that they need and which are prescribed by doctors. I urge the Minister to look at the British Medical Journal of 2 October 1993, which reports that 14 per cent. of prescriptions are not dispensed. They are given to patients and the patients do not cash them in. Surely that is evidence that, having been given a prescription by their doctor, patients are deterred from taking it to a pharmacy and getting it dispensed. The Minister should answer those questions.
Mr. Malone: The relevant fact is whether the hon. Gentleman can say how many of that 14 per cent. were exempt and how many were due to incur charges. If he cannot do that, he is making a totally irrelevant point.
Mr. Bayley: It is not a totally irrelevant point; it is a point which we put to many people who gave evidence to the Select Committee.
I refer to the evidence that we received from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Its president, Mr. Nicholas Wood, said:
Sometimes patients do say, I have not got enough money with me. There are three items on the prescription. Which one shall I take? It is very unfortunate and it puts a pharmacist into a difficult position.
There is evidence from the professionals that people are unable to get the drugs that they need because of the charge. It is not good enough for the Government blindly to dismiss it and to say, It does not matter. We shall carry on putting up the charge, not just by the rate of inflation, but by three times the rate of inflation. There is evidence that patients are not getting the treatment prescribed to them by their doctors and the Government should act on that evidence.
Mr. Illsley: Has the Select Committee come across any reason why anyone should not cash in a prescription, other than the threat of the cost?
Mr. Bayley: Intuition suggests that people who have to pay are less likely to cash in their prescriptions, but there is evidence from the British Medical Journal and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and there was the evidence to the Committee from the British Medical Association. It is extraordinary that when the evidence is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State in our report, the Government neither respond to the evidence nor do they tell the House that they are investigating it.
The Minister won a few laughs from his side by deriding Labours policy of conducting a thorough review of prescription charges, but in their response to the Select Committee report the Government said that they were conducting a review. Who is undertaking that review, and when will the report be produced? If the Minister cannot

1147
tell us the answer, I imagine that the Select Committee will want to know why the response to its report was made in such terms. There is a contradiction between what the Minister has told the House today and what the Secretary of State told the Committee in response to our report.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked the Minister directly what proportion of prescriptions cost less than £5.25. He could not give a figure. Instead, he gave an answer to a question that had not been asked. The Select Committees evidence revealed, however, that 52 per cent. of items prescribed—the majority—cost less than the old, lower prescription charge, and the current estimate is in excess of 60 per cent.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: In a letter that I received from the Minister today, he estimates that
over 50 per cent. of prescription items will have a total cost to the NHS of more than … £5.25
It follows that just under 50 per cent. will cost less than £5.25.
Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing me up to date. That is a substantial number.
The Select Committee—which, like all Select Committees, has a Conservative majority—said in its report:
We consider it unreasonable that any patient should have to pay the full cost of prescription charges in respect of items the actual cost of which is less than the prescription charge.
That is what a Committee with a Conservative majority is saying to the Minister. How does he respond to his hon. Friends proposal?
Our Committee—whose majority reflects the composition of the House—has called for a review of prescription charges and exemptions. The Minister asks what such a review should cover. I will make some suggestions. Under the regulations, the cost of an annual prepayment certificate—an annual prescription season ticket—will rise to £74.80. Why do not the Government, in a review, consider a system whereby people could pay in instalments?
People who are, by definition, on low incomes—otherwise they would not want a prepayment form—but not quite on income support level which would make them exempt from charges will find it difficult to pay nearly £75. That is a benefit that the Government could have introduced if they were keen to ensure that patients received the medicines that their GPs prescribe. The Minister could also examine the low-income exemption categories: why is someone receiving unemployment benefit not exempt? My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South gave other examples.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out that there are exemptions for some chronic diseases, such as epilepsy and diabetes, but not for others, such as chronic asthma, cystic fibrosis and hypertension. Those anomalies need to be resolved: given that certain people need regular prescriptions throughout their lives, it is plainly wrong for some to be exempted while others are not.
Mr. Malone: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman cleared that shopping list with his Front Bench. It is clear that Opposition Members can come out with shopping lists that their Front Bench refuses to acknowledge.
Mr. Bayley: The Minister would find it outrageous if, as a member of a Select Committee, I went running to my Front Bench to ask permission to include something in the Committees report. Every one of the suggestions on my list was the Committees suggestion, backed by every one of its Conservative members. They were the authors of that revolutionary shopping list—that drug-inspired psychedelic madness that the Minister derides.
Just for good measure, I will add a suggestion of my own which was not included in the Select Committees list—although it was suggested in evidence from the British Medical Association: someone who has a repeat prescription should not have to pay a repeat prescription charge. We heard earlier about a patient whose drugs for depression were prescribed at weekly intervals, for her own good. If the Government do nothing else, surely they can agree to drugs being prescribed in smaller amounts—which would be less wasteful and cost the NHS less money—without penalising the patient by imposing a further prescription charge since the charge is a tax.
Mr. Malone indicated dissent.
Mr. Bayley: The Minister may shake his head at my use of the word tax, but when his predecessor gave evidence to the Select Committee he acknowledged that the prescription charge
is in the nature of a tax.
He explained:
Patients are not making a payment for the drug that they receive. They are making a contribution to the NHS.
The charge is a general contribution to the cost of the NHS. The Minister argued tonight that that is the purpose of the prescription charge. It is a Tory tax which has gone through the roof. If it had increased in line with inflation since 1979, the prescription charge would be 53p instead of a proposed £5.25. That is the mega inflation of a mega Tory tax.
11.41 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did patients no favours with her speech. She was terrorising them with her emotive language and dangerous, misleading and scaremongering statements. A patient at home listening to the debate could only be deeply alarmed.
The proposed 50p increase in prescription charges is equivalent to two first-class stamps, two sliced loaves or not even a pint of beer. We must keep a sense of proportion. Every person in the land knows that health is a priority in their family budget. If charges are as burdensome as the right hon. Member for Derby, South and her supporters claim, why is not my surgery packed with complaining patients? Instead, people tell me about the excellent NHS treatment they have received. They tell me how quickly they received treatment, and how quickly they recovered, returned home and got back to work and to help their families.
That is the good news from the national health service. Labour chokes on admitting that we do have good news. The good news has come because we have managed to

1149
eliminate waste; we have packaged our resources to ensure that the maximum amount of money is available for patient care. The £310 million to be raised by the charge will go to the front-line patients, who will benefit by it.
Let us examine the sort of treatments that could be on offer as a result. There could be more than 75,000 hip replacements. Or there could be more than 50,000 coronary artery bypass operations—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Lady is straying rather far from prescription charges.
Lady Olga Maitland: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh!] I am saying that prescription charges—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair cannot hear what the hon. Lady is saying.
Lady Olga Maitland: I am saying that the money raised by the prescription charges will pay for all this treatment—and for 200,000 cataract removals besides. Surely any patient queuing up for these treatments would be delighted to get them. How can the Labour party seek to deny them those treatments?
The Labour party talks about a review. What good is a review to my patients? None at all: it will not speed up treatment. More, I suspect that the review will just be another device to bring about delay and upheaval. In the end it will mean fewer resources for patients.
It might help patients to learn a bit of history, too. Charges are a long-standing feature of the NHS. I remind the Labour party that the Attlee Government, on coming to power, decided to introduce prescription charges. In 1949, Labour, not the Conservatives, made that decision. Mr. Attlee announced it himself, and the Opposition can read that in Hansard of 24 October 1949.
Finally the charges were introduced in 1952, but then, Labour had already introduced charges for dentures and spectacles in 1951. And charges for dental treatment were introduced in 1952. Labour abolished prescription charges in 1965, only to reintroduce them in 1968. That shows how much hypocritical cant we have heard from the Labour party today.
It would also benefit those outside this place to go over some comparisons with other countries in the European Union. In many other EU countries, charging for treatment is much more widespread. The fact is that we have the most generous health service of all. Spain and Britain are the only EU countries to exempt pensioners from prescription charges. In Germany, pensioners have to make a contribution from their pensions into a sickness fund. In France, pensioners are expected to pay towards hospital charges; and in Belgium, pensioners pay up to 25 per cent. of doctors consultation fees. Do the Opposition agree that pensioners in this country are infinitely better off?
In other countries, too, pensioners are expected to make a financial contribution. Many people in the Irish Republic have to pay charges for doctors consultations and in-patient stays. In Italy, there are daily charges for the first 10 days stay as a hospital in-patient, although
1150
pensioners are exempt. In Luxembourg there are daily charges for hospital in-patient stays. There are charges for doctors consultations in Portugal.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: She is reading out a central office brief.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must quieten down.
Lady Olga Maitland: One thing that is for sure is that the Conservative party and the Conservative Government respect our responsibilities in caring for the sick, the frail and the weak. We give them our priorities. We spend more money on the health service than the Labour party has ever dreamt of. It is salutary to bear in mind the fact that we spend £100 million a day on our health service. That is good news. As far as I am concerned, patients health is safe in Conservative Governments hands. It would be wrecked and undermined by the Labour party.
11.49 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I do not want to be accused by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) of suppressing good news. The good news that is before the House today is the Governments proposition that prescription charges should rise at three times the rate of inflation. We are debating the Labour party's prayer against that proposition—a prayer that I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support.
The Minister opened the debate by whingeing about its timing. The timing of our prayer is directly consequent on the timing of his announcement. Is the Minister proud of what he is doing? Indeed, are Conservative health Ministers ever proud of increasing prescription charges? The evidence seems to suggest that they are not. These announcements have been repeatedly sneaked out. The House will recall that the latest increase was announced on a Wednesday. On the Monday, there was a debate on health care, in which it could have been announced. On the Tuesday, there was a debate on health care, in which it could have been announced. But no, it was a written answer, put out proudly in the name of the Secretary of State—no, slipped out in the name of the Minister of State, when there was an important announcement on Northern Ireland at the same time.
Indeed, only a week before, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) had asked the Minister of State whether he had any plans to increase prescription charges. The Minister replied:
Any announcement will be made at the appropriate time.— [Official Report, 14 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 637.]
So it is a bit rich of him to whinge about the timing now. It is par for the course. In 1994, the 50p increase came out in a written answer. In 1993, Madam Speaker had cause to rebuke the Secretary of State and the then Minister of State for abusing the pursuant device to sneak out a supplementary written reply. In 1992, the 35p increase was sneaked out during a high-profile dispute about employment figures.
In other words, the evidence is perfectly clear that the Government are not proud of what they are doing. If they are not proud of what they are doing, the Labour party is saying that it is not unreasonable for them to pause and think again, to review what they are doing. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has perfectly

1151
correctly pointed out, prescription charges have risen from 20p in 1978 to £5.25 from April 1995—a tenfold increase in real terms. If the charges had increased in line with inflation, they would now stand at 53p. The issue that the House must consider is why prescription charges are getting these regular, steady increases, dramatically ahead of the rate of inflation. Why single out prescription charges?
A number of hon. Members have drawn comparisons. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam treated us to a shopping list. I know that several of my hon. Friends were rather hoping to persuade her to get our shopping in at those prices. She referred to equivalents. In 1978, the prescription charge was equivalent to the price of half a pint of beer. It is now equivalent to more than three pints of beer. In 1978, the charge was less than half the price of a packet of cigarettes. It is now around twice the price of a packet of cigarettes. Why is the relative price of prescription charges rising against the price of beer and cigarettes? What are the Government trying to say to the British people in the relative judgments that they are making on these matters?
The Minister said that there was no evidence to show that price affected consumption—in other words, affected the number of prescriptions. That is not so, as his own Department could tell him—if it dared, or if he asked it. The figures that his Department has issued show that the average number of charged prescription items per person in 1978 was 5.5 per year. In 1993 there were 2.2 items per year.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies looked at prescription charges in a report published in 1990 and concluded that the entire fall in the increase in charge prescriptions could be accounted for by the increase in the real level of the prescription charge. That evidence runs counter to the Ministers statement. There was similar research by the York centre for health economics which estimates that the prescription charge increases have halved the demand for prescriptions among those who are not exempt. People are not taking the medicines that they should take because of price, although they are being advised by clinicians to take them. That must be wrong and it is false economy.
Precisely the same reasoning applies to national health service eye tests. There is a compelling case for free tests for those over the age of 65. That case was made in the debate and the principles that underpin it are the same as those that apply to prescription charges.
The Government claim that more people get free prescriptions under them than they did under Labour. But that is not because the Governments prescription exemptions are any more generous: they have not changed at all. It is because more people are now living in real poverty, more are unemployed and there are more elderly people, although I cannot blame the Government for that. Increased costs are deterring those who have to pay. [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who screeches at me, that the Government should take demographic factors into account. That is why we say that these matters should be reviewed.
Some 50 per cent. of the population are liable to pay for their prescriptions and they are being excessively picked on. Those people are being picked on well beyond the degree to which the Government pick on any other item for which they charge.
1152
The Minister will ask what Labour should do. It is perfectly clear that we shall vote against this impost, and we shall do so now.
11.56 pm
Mr. Malone: If our strategy had been to try to slip the increase out by sleight of hand at dead of night, doing it by way of a parliamentary question and my appearance on the Jimmy Young show to justify the Governments policy, which I was pleased to do, and having a debate about these matters after the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) prayed against the regulations, it would have failed.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has come up with no policy at all. He suggests a review and that is it.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [24 March].
The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 281.

Division No. 121]

[11.57 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Corston, Jean

Adams, Mrs Irene

Cox, Tom

Ainger, Nick

Cummings, John

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Allen, Graham

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Alton, David

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Dalyell, Tam

Armstrong, Hilary

Darling, Alistair

Ashton, Joe

Davidson, Ian

Austin-Walker, John

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Barnes, Harry

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Barron, Kevin

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

Bayley, Hugh

Denham, John

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Dewar, Donald

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Dixon, Don

Bell, Stuart

Dobson, Frank

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Donohoe, Brian H

Bennett, Andrew F

Dowd, Jim

Bermingham, Gerald

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Berry, Roger

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Betts, Clive

Eagle, Ms Angela

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Eastham, Ken

Blunkett, David

Enright, Derek

Boateng, Paul

Etherington, Bill

Bradley, Keith

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

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

Fatchett, Derek

Burden, Richard

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Byers, Stephen

Fisher, Mark

Caborn, Richard

Flynn, Paul

Callaghan, Jim

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foulkes, George

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Fraser, John

Campbell-Savours, D N

Fyfe, Maria

Canavan, Dennis

Galloway, George

Cann, Jamie

Gapes, Mike

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Gerrard, Neil

Chidgey, David

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Church, Judith

Godman, Dr Norman A

Clapham, Michael

Godsiff, Roger

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Graham, Thomas

Clelland, David

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Coffey, Ann

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cohen, Harry

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Grocott, Bruce

Corbett, Robin

Gunnell, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hain, Peter

1153

Hall, Mike

Morgan, Rhodri

Hanson, David

Morley, Elliot

Harman, Ms Harriet

Morris, Estate (B'ham Yardley)

Henderson, Doug

Mowlam, Marjorie

Heppell, John

Mudie, George

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Mullin, Chris

Hinchliffe, David

Murphy, Paul

Hodge, Margaret

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hoey, Kate

O'Brien, Mike (N Wkshire)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Home Robertson, John

Olner, Bill

Hood, Jimmy

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hoon, Geoffrey

Pearson, Ian

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Pickthall, Colin

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Pike, Peter L

Hoyle, Doug

Pope, Greg

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Primarolo, Dawn

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Purchase, Ken

Hutton, John

Quin, Ms Joyce

Illsley, Eric

Randall, Stuart

Ingram, Adam

Raynsford, Nick

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Redmond, Martin

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Reid, Dr John

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Rendel, David

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Rogers, Allan

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Rooker, Jeff

Jowell, Tessa

Rooney, Terry

Keen, Alan

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Ruddock, Joan

Khabra, Piara S

Sedgemore, Brian

Kilfoyle, Peter

Sheerman, Barry

Kirkwood, Archy

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Short, Clare

Lewis, Terry

Simpson, Alan

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Skinner, Dennis

Litherland, Robert

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Livingstone, Ken

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Snape, Peter

Llwyd, Elfyn

Soley, Clive

Loyden, Eddie

Spearing, Nigel

Lynne, Ms Liz

Spellar, John

McAllion, John

Stevenson, George

McAvoy, Thomas

Stott, Roger

McCartney, Ian

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Macdonald, Calum

Straw, Jack

McFall, John

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McKelvey, William

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Timms, Stephen

McLeish, Henry

Tipping, Paddy

McMaster, Gordon

Touhig, Don

McNamara, Kevin

Turner, Dennis

MacShane, Denis

Tyler, Paul

McWilliam, John

Vaz, Keith

Madden, Max

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Maddock, Diana

Wallace, James

Mahon, Alice

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mandelson, Peter

Wareing, Robert N

Marek, Dr John

Wicks, Malcolm

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Wigley, Dafydd

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swn W)

Martlew, Eric

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Maxton, John

Wilson, Brian

Meacher, Michael

Wise, Audrey

Meale, Alan

Wray, Jimmy

Michael, Alun

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Milburn, Alan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Miller, Andrew

Mr. Joe Benton and

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Mr. Eric Clarke.

1154

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Alexander, Richard

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Amess, David

Evennett, David

Arbuthnot, James

Faber, David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fabricant, Michael

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Ashby, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Atkins, Robert

Fishburn, Dudley

Atkinson, David (Bourmouth E)

Forman, Nigel

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Forth, Eric

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bates, Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Batiste, Spencer

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bellingham, Henry

French, Douglas

Bendall, Vivian

Fry, Sir Peter

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gale, Roger

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gallie, Phil

Booth, Hartley

Gardiner, Sir George

Boswell, Tim

Gillan, Cheryl

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Gorst, Sir John

Bowis, John

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brandreth, Gyles

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Brazier, Julian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Bright, Sir Graham

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hague, William

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Budgen, Nicholas

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Burns, Simon

Hannam, Sir John

Burt, Alistair

Harris, David

Butcher, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Butler, Peter

Hawkins, Nick

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hawksley, Warren

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayes, Jerry

Cash, William

Heald, Oliver

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Churchill, Mr

Hendry, Charles

Clappison, James

Hicks, Robert

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Coe, Sebastian

Horam, John

Colvin, Michael

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Congdon, David

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Conway, Derek

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

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Couchman, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Cran, James

Hunter, Andrew

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

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Jack, Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jenkin, Bernard

Day, Stephen

Jessel, Toby

Devlin, Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dicks, Terry

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dover, Den

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Duncan, Alan

Key, Robert

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dunn, Bob

King, Rt Hon Tom

Durant, Sir Anthony

Knapman, Roger

Dykes, Hugh

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Elletson, Harold

Knox, Sir David

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

1155

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Legg, Barry

Shersby, Michael

Leigh, Edward

Sims, Roger

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lidington, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Soames, Nicholas

Luff, Peter

Spencer, Sir Derek

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

MacKay, Andrew

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Maclean, David

Spink, Dr Robert

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spring, Richard

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sproat, Iain

Madel, Sir David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Malone, Gerald

Steen, Anthony

Mans, Keith

Stephen, Michael

Marland, Paul

Stern, Michael

Marlow, Tony

Stewart, Allan

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Streeter, Gary

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Sumberg, David

Mates, Michael

Sykes, John

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Merchant, Piers

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mills, Iain

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thomason, Roy

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Moate, Sir Roger

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Monro, Sir Hector

Thurnham, Peter

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Townend John (Bridlington)

Nelson, Anthony

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Tracey, Richard

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Tredinnick, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Trend, Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Trotter, Neville

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Norris, Steve

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Viggers, Peter

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Oppenheim, Phillip

Walden, George

Ottaway, Richard

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Page, Richard

Waller, Gary

Paice, James

Ward, John

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Waterson, Nigel

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Watts, John

Pickles, Eric

Wells, Bowen

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Powell, William (Corby)

Whitney, Ray

Rathbone, Tim

Whittingdale, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Widdecombe, Ann

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Richards, Rod

Wilkinson, John

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Willetts, David

Robathan, Andrew

Wilshire, David

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wolfson, Mark

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Wood, Timothy

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Yeo, Tim

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Sackville, Tom

Tellers for the Noes:

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

George Beattie
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
12.8 am
Mr. Jimmy Hood: The subject of this Adjournment debate is the George Beanie case. I wish to draw the attention of the House, and especially that of the Minister, to the worrying history of the police force in my constituency, which was involved in the investigation of the murder of Margaret McLaughlan and the wrongful conviction of my constituent, George Beattie, in July 1973.
First, let me tell the House of the conspiracy that took place on the day that the girls body was found—a conspiracy which set the tone for the entire investigation that followed. The court and the jury were told a story which is at great variance with the facts as many now tell them.
The man who went to court and told the story of finding the body was a uniformed inspector from Lanark police. He still lives in Carluke today in retirement. He told the defence solicitor:
She appeared to be dead and must have been dragged down the path. I noted the time as 2.25 pm.
I repeat the time of 2.25 pm, so that hon. Members will not forget it. Inspector Harry Robson found the body at two minutes to 3 in the afternoon. He called in the CID, and the pathologists arrived at the scene at 6 o'clock in the evening and began their examination of the body. They had come from Glasgow—perhaps an hour away at the most.
When Inspector Robson went to the court at Beattie's trial, he was not so precise about the time of finding the body. Hon. Members may later come to some conclusion as to why the inspector did not tell the court an accurate time for finding the body. The inspector said that he had left the police office in Lanark at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, so it seems that his timing of finding the body at two minutes to 3 would confirm that. Why then am I now aware of some five police witnesses who have testified at one time or another that the body was found in the morning?
Last year, the woman police constable who was assigned to question the family of the dead girl, now former WPC Stewart, gave an interview to BBC television. When she was asked the time when the body was found, she replied:
I think I was in the house until about lunch time, twelve o'clock, half past twelve, something like that when the CID officers came in and then I was taken out to get on with other inquiries.
Another person interviewed by the BBC at that time was the man who found the body, Constable John Baker, now a retired policeman. He said that, after he had discovered the body, the procurator fiscal was quickly on the scene. What time had the procurator fiscal arrived?
Between ten and eleven o'clock,
said John Baker. The interviewer was astounded and said:
You're talking about the morning, then, not the evening.
It was true. John Baker had found the body at about 10.30 am.
Imagine that a girl had been murdered and that news had got out around the neighbourhood. Who of all the people in that neighbourhood would remember to the very minute when he or she heard the news? It would, of course, be the parents.

1157
When the mother of Margaret McLaughlan was asked when she was told of her daughters murder, she said that it was half-past 11. That was not said off the cuff to a television reporter. It was not said while she was being questioned on the morning that her daughters body was discovered. It was not said in any informal manner, but under oath in the High Court in Glasgow, on the morning of Tuesday on 2 October at the trial of Beattie.
Let us get to grips with the situation. The court was deceived, the jury was deceived, the defence lawyers were misinformed. I believe that the prosecution counsel was misinformed. Why? I suspect that a policeman in Strathclyde police force made a ghastly error on that Saturday morning, and that everyone involved was told to cover it up. I believe that the police thought that the murderer might return to the scene of the crime, so they waited for him.
In the meantime, the pathologists were not called, and they could not examine the body at noon, as they might otherwise have done, so their estimates of the time of the girls death, which was very important at the trial, were ruined. The temperature rose very high that afternoon. It was the longest day of the year, and a sunny one.
Then, when some senior officer decided that the stupidity had gone far enough, all the officers entered into a conspiracy to cover it all up. How they ever imagined that they could get away with it is beyond belief. But they did—for 21 years. Any conspiracy within the police is unforgivable, but that one is especially so, because it helped to convict an innocent man.
The conspiracy also tells us much about the attitude of the police force that conducted the inquiry, and that will be important when we assess what later happened to George Beattie during the investigation. But before I deal with the events that led to the charge of murder against George Beattie, let me illustrate that attitude in the force and demonstrate its source, because it came from the very top.
The man in charge of the inquiry was Detective Chief Superintendent William Muncie. When he arrived at the scene of the crime on the Saturday, he was shown a knife sticking in the ground by the side of the path leading up to the glen, towards the railway—the general area where the girl had been attacked. He sent the knife off to the laboratory for testing, along with a soil sample that he had taken from around it.
The scientist at the laboratory wrote a letter to Mr. Muncie saying that neither the knife nor the soil sample had any trace of blood on it, but by the time the letter was received Mr. Muncie had already charged Beattie with murder, chiefly because, as he claimed, Beattie had told him where the knife had been, and had described its general shape.
Did Mr. Muncie doubt the validity of his case against Beattie when he learned that the knife and the soil sample had no trace of blood on them? Did he renew his efforts to find evidence of blood on the knife that Beattie had apparently named as the murder weapon? Not at all. He simply suppressed the document that destroyed his case against my constituent. He suppressed the best evidence.
The Lord Justice-General made much of the word suppression at my constituents appeal last November. Well he might, because it was a copy of that document that caused the Secretary of State to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal. But of course, the document that
1158
Lord Hope had in front of him had not been suppressed; it was the original of the document that had been suppressed.
Show me a copy of the letter from the scientist to Mr. Muncie that has a letterhead on it. Show me the scientists signature at the bottom of it, and then I shall say that the document was not suppressed. Show me the evidence that Mr. Muncie even asked for a further test for blood. Show me when he asked for the blade to be taken from the hilt so that the dirt from the joint could be examined for traces of blood. Show me any such evidence, and I shall begin to believe that Mr. Muncie might have done otherwise than destroy the document that ruined his case against my constituent.
I invite the Minister to ask the scientist involved, Mr. Hamilton, how a copy of the letter came into the hands of the procurator fiscal and subsequently the Crown Office. Why did Mr. Hamilton deem it necessary to duplicate the evidence in that way—unless, of course, he thought it odd that the knife was never sent back to his laboratory for further testing after it became a production in evidence against George Beattie?
Now, having touched on two conspiracies perpetrated by the police in the case, I shall rehearse the major evidence against the police force that convicted my constituent. At Beatties trial, the police claimed that they had elicited admissions from him at Carluke police station, during the course of two interrogations. They claimed that he had told them details about the scene of the crime that only the murderer could have known.
There were three key points. The police said that Beattie knew where the body had been, where the large knife had been left stuck in the ground, and where the girls suitcase had been thrown. The police claimed that this was special knowledge. Beattie, they said, had revealed his guilt during two interrogations on the night of the Wednesday after the murder. He had then shown them the secret locations.
What the police forgot to tell anyone was that there was a third interrogation on the Wednesday night, during which Beattie was fed all that information. One may well surmise that there must have been an inevitable conspiracy in a force such as that to suppress the truth about the matter. The first interrogation in Carluke began at 8 pm, and the second began at 9.30 pm. Beattie was charged with the murder at around 1 am.
The interrogators were two police officers from Lanark CID, DC John Semple and Sergeant Dougie Mortimer. A sketch of the murder site was produced in court. Both officers were questioned closely about the rough plan during the trial, because it was claimed that Beattie had described where the attack on the girl took place and where the umbrella had been left after the attack.
If the two officers were telling the truth, and there is no reason to doubt their word, the sketch they produced was a simple plan of the glen that anyone in Carluke would have been able to draw. There is nothing incriminating in it at all. I emphasise that Beattie never touched the sketch; nor did any other officer, according to the police.
The official story is that, after Mortimer finished the second interrogation, Beattie was charged with the murder. He was then taken to the cells in Lanark. During the car journey there, said Mortimer, Beattie mentioned the knife for the first time, and said that he would show

1159
the police where it had been left at the scene of the murder. Mortimer took Beattie down to the scene of the crime early the next morning, and Beattie was alleged to have shown him where the knife was stuck in the ground by a concrete post. He also showed the police where the girls body had been and where the suitcase had been thrown.
The demonstration of that special knowledge—particularly the location of the knife, only 20 yd from the body—left a deep impression on the jury at Beattie's trial. Unfortunately, the police never had to demonstrate in any way the circumstances surrounding any of the interviews that they conducted with Beattie during the inquiry, or the complete background to any of the admissions he made—or that they alleged he made—during the interviews.
If the procurator fiscal had had the duty to make such inquiries to further investigate any suspicious circumstances about the interviews, the case against Beattie would never have been presented to the jury at the trial. No one—particularly no one on the jury—looked at the rough plan. That was the major mistake that cost George Beattie the best years of his life. There were other marks on the plan, which neither of the police interrogators had mentioned. In particular, the three main points of special knowledge were clearly marked.
If the Minister cares to take another look at the rough sketch, he may see that for himself. I have a copy of the sketch for him tonight. The sketch clearly shows the location of the concrete post and the knife beside it. All that has carefully been drawn in, and there are dots showing the actual locations, which have been ringed as if someone had pointed them out. None of that information had been discussed during the two recorded interrogations.
The rough sketch is incontestable proof that there was a third, secret, interrogation. So it is not at all surprising that Beattie gave the police the special knowledge when he went to the scene of the crime the next morning. He had been given it during the secret third interrogation the night before. Beattie had even had a picture of it drawn for him.
The story gets worse, but unfortunately I am running out of time and must move to my conclusion. More evidence was suppressed in the case—best evidence, as it is termed. This was deliberately withheld from the prosecution, because of ethics, and was of course withheld from the defence, because the content of that documentary evidence could have severely damaged the police case.
There is a much longer, more comprehensive and more clearly documented version of what occurred when Beattie was questioned by the police. A retired police officer has retained his notebook over the past 21 years, even though he has been retired for several years. He was in attendance during the key interview that the police conducted with Beattie, the interview that caused Beattie to be charged.
His notes of the interview far outstripped in length the paltry 163 words of the sergeant who conducted the interview. His notes take up pages and pages of his notebook. It is and was clearly the best evidence available of the interview. Yet the procurator fiscal never saw the
1160
notebook. The Crown Office never saw it, and nor did prosecuting counsel. Perhaps most importantly, Beattie's defence solicitor and counsel did not see it.
Best evidence was ignored by the police. The officer in question appeared at the trial. He was asked whether any record was kept of what Beattie said. He replied:
Sergeant Mortimer made notes, yes.
The Minister might care to look at that section of the trial transcript. It is on page 262, paragraph D.
At best, the officers answer was a half-truth. Why did he say, Sergeant Mortimer made notes? Why did he not say the whole truth, as he had sworn to do, which was, I made notes and the notebook is in my pocket at this moment; it is the best record of the interview that is available? Why should he ever have been instructed to hide his noteboook from the defence lawyers and the jury that day?
I can tell the House that the officer knew what Mortimer's evidence had been. He knew the story that was the police version of the interview with Beattie. There were salient alleged facts in that version that he could not corroborate from his notebook.
Another astonishing fact about the officers evidence is that he failed to hear a conversation that Mr. Muncie claimed to have had at the scene of the crime on the Thursday morning. It was a crucial conversation, which was read out to the court from notes with great solemnity. In that conversation, Beattie described the handle of the knife that was supposed to be the murder weapon. It had a kind of hook at the end of the handle. And that clinched the matter.
Why is it that the officer who was taking the most comprehensive notes of these events did not take a note of a crucial conversation? That is strange. He might have claimed, as his partner Sergeant Mortimer did in court, that he did not hear the conversation. Mortimer told the jury that he, Beattie, spoke with Mr. Muncie, but he did not know what he said.
Perhaps Mortimer could have wandered off and not heard Beattie's final comments—but not the officer whose notebook has recently come to light. He must have heard the conversation, if it ever took place. He must have been within a couple of feet of the conversation. He was handcuffed to Beattie throughout Beattie's visit to the scene of the crime. Yet he did not hear what was one of the most crucial conversations in the entire investigation. He made no note of some of the most important evidence supposed to have been given by George Beattie.
How can that be explained away? The long arm of the Lanarkshire law extends to the men involved even to this day, for the retired officer will not give up his notebook. I understand that he has even said that he has disposed of it. I ask the Minister to order an independent inquiry into the affair with such speed that the notebook in question can be obtained and secured in a safe place.
The Minister would no doubt like to see the details set out in the police officers notebook—the best evidence that I mentioned earlier. The notebook may be burned even now, so that my constituent will not gain freedom from conviction.
I have a copy of a verbatim minute of that notebook in my possession, which I shall hand to the Minister when I take my seat. It was taken during a two-hour interview by two investigative journalists with the former police officer concerned.

1161
The Minister may well like to know what the officer in question has to say when confronted with the evidence that is so at variance with what he now knows from his own knowledge. I present the Minister also with a signed statement containing that information from Peter Hill, an investigative journalist and a television producer.
The Minister may well care to know the name, address and telephone number of the retired police officer who is currently obstructing my inquiry into these matters by refusing to give up his notebook. I decided to name that officer in the House tonight. I cannot allow him to hide from his public responsibility.
I discussed that person with the Minister early this afternoon, and I sought assurance from the Minister that, when I presented this evidence to the House tonight, he would immediately hold an investigation into the allegations made, and seek to obtain possession of that book and put it in safe keeping.
The officers name, address and telephone number are included in the documentation that I shall hand to the Minister when I take my seat, along with a signed statement and a copy of the sketch from the scene of the murder.
The Minister has assured me that he will investigate the matters that I have mentioned tonight, so on this occasion I have agreed with the Minister not to name that police officer, so as to allow the authorities the opportunity to go to that person and seek to obtain his evidence from him.
In the near future, I shall petition the Secretary of State for Scotland for another appeal for George Beattie.
Tonight, the BBC Scotland Front-line programme will run another programme on the case of George Beattie, including more evidence that proves that he is innocent. I hope that all Scotland will watch that programme tonight. I hope that the Minister will watch that programme tonight. I hope that the Secretary of State, Lord Fraser and Lord Hope watch that programme tonight.
George Beattie is innocent. In his words,
he is free on parole—but he still has the ball and chain around his ankle.
It is for the House to give him the justice that he deserves.
12.31 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on his success in securing a further debate on the Adjournment about the case of George Beattie, and on his obvious commitment on behalf of his constituent.
The present position with regard to Mr. Beattie is that there is no petition before the Secretary of State, following the decision reached by the Court of Appeal on 2 December 1994. The court concluded then that no grounds had been put before it would show that there had been a miscarriage of justice at Mr. Beattie's trial.
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's worries about Mr. Beattie's case with great attention tonight. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to consider any further representations that may be submitted on Mr. Beattie's behalf.
1162
The hon. Gentleman mentioned conspiracy on the part of the police. He mentioned the withholding of evidence in relation to the notebook, and he made certain statements in relation to Mr. Muncie. The appropriate procedure is for those matters to be laid out in a petition so that they can be properly considered, and the hon. Gentleman, as I understood it, said that that course would be adopted on behalf of Mr. Beattie.
I am sure that those who attended Mr. Beattie's appeal last November, or who subsequently read the detailed opinion delivered by the Court of Appeal, will be ready to acknowledge the careful and meticulous scrutiny that the Court of Appeal gave to his case in November and December 1994.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland refers a case to the Court of Appeal under section 263, the court is not restricted by the particular grounds that caused my right hon. Friend to request the review; it is the appellant who is responsible for identifying in his note of appeal all the grounds on which he claims that there was a miscarriage of justice at his trial.
Mr. Hood: The petition and the appeal will be pursued. Can the Minister confirm what I assumed he agreed with tonight, when I put forward the evidence concerning that former police officer who has in his possession a notebook that is relevant to the case—that he will take steps to try to get the authorities to obtain that notebook and put it in a safe place?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Clydesdale said that he will submit the documents, and I have assured him that the matter will be investigated as is deemed appropriate. We will obviously have to study those documents, and I will be grateful to receive the papers concerned at the conclusion of the debate.
Counsel for Mr. Beattie was pressed by the court to ensure that his note of appeal identified all the grounds on which he claimed that there had been a miscarriage of justice at the original trial. In consequence, the single ground on which Mr. Beattie's appeal originally rested was extended to four grounds of appeal. They focused on: an erroneous statement by the Court of Appeal in 1973 to the effect that Mr. Beattie had himself given evidence at his trial; the sufficiency of the evidence at that trial; the time of death of the victim; and the fact that the forensic scientists letter of 7 July 1973 had not been made available to the defence.
Significantly, however, none of the grounds lodged for last Novembers appeal made any suggestion whatsoever of police malpractice. In particular, it was not suggested that the special knowledge which Mr. Beattie had revealed by his statements to the police and his actions at the scene of the crime had been imparted to him by the police themselves; nor was it suggested at the trial or at the recent appeal hearing that the police evidence about what he said and did was in any respect incomplete or inaccurate. I shall look very closely at the information which the hon. Gentleman intends to submit tonight.
The Court of Appeal considered the submissions made on Mr. Beattie's behalf last November in the light of the evidence which had been led at his trial, but it concluded that the appeal had to be refused. The Court of Appeal indicated that it was satisfied that there had been sufficient evidence at the trial for a conviction.

1163
The court was also satisfied that the evidence of the bloodstains on the tissues, when taken together with other evidence from which it could be inferred that Mr. Beattie had the tissues with him at the locus and had the opportunity to commit the murder, was sufficient to corroborate the inference of guilt which the jury were entitled to draw from what Mr. Beattie said to the police and pointed out to them at the locus.
The court was not satisfied that the evidence of testing of the deceased's blood on the MN system revealed by the letter of 11 July 1973 would have had a material part to play in the jury's decision on the question whether the bloodstains on the tissues could have come from the deceased, as there was no evidence as to what the result of testing the bloodstains on the tissues on the MN system would have been.
I should like to clarify a misunderstanding on a question of fact. In the last Adjournment debate held on Mr. Beattie's case, I referred to correspondence between the late Dame Judith Hart, the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and the then Solicitor-General. I make it quite clear that the then Solicitor-General confirmed to Dame Judith that no blood was found near the scene of the crime belonging to a group to which neither Beattie's nor the victims belonged.
1164
In a subsequent press article, my reference to that statement was quoted out of the context, and it was made to imply that blood of Mr. Beattie's grouping was found near the scene. It is important to clarify for the record that there was no forensic evidence available to indicate that blood of Mr. Beattie's grouping was found at or near the scene of the crime. There is no disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and me on that point, which I have sought to clarify tonight.
My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider any further petition which may now be submitted. I have noted the number of criticisms made of the police investigation of the case in the media. Allegations of police malpractice, if substantiated, would be a matter of grave concern to any civilised society. However, it is equally important for society to protect the reputation of its police officers, whether serving, retired or dead, against unfounded allegations.
We therefore stand ready to review the case further. Any evidence which may be submitted on Mr. Beattie's behalf—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Darius Guppy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 March,Official Report, column 30, if he will list the applications for legal aid made over the past 12 months by Darius Guppy. [15665]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Over the past 12 months, Mr. Guppy has made six applications for civil legal aid and one for ABWOR—assistance by way of representation. No central record of applications for criminal legal aid is kept, but I am aware of one such application from Mr. Guppy, to which I referred in my answer of 20 March.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 March,Official Report, column 30, if he will seek to amend section 38 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 to remove the confidentiality provisions on the disclosure of information on an applicant's financial means where the applicant is serving a prison sentence for theft. [15666]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No. The "confidentiality" clause in section 38 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 is not unique to legal aid and is common practice in organisations which retain personal details of an individual's circumstances.

  Legal Aid Expenditure
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate what was the expenditure from the legal aid fund(a) in total and (b) in Wales in the last available year. [15789]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Actual net expenditure on legal aid in England and Wales in 1993–94 was £1,210 million. For expenditure in Wales, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 2 March 1995,Official Report, column 677. The legal aid fund in Wales is administered by two separate area offices, situated at Cardiff and Chester, the latter being also responsible for administering legal aid in parts of England. It is therefore not possible readily to identify payments made solely in respect of assisted persons resident in Wales, nor is it possible to estimate what proportion of legal aid fund expenditure related specifically to Wales.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the costs and benefits of constructing a high speed rail link from north-west England to connect with the proposed channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Watts
  I have not assessed the costs and benefits of a completely new line. However, on 22 March, I announced the first stage of a £1 billion modernisation of the west coast main line.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines his Department has issued to its agencies and other public bodies under its authority in respect of the employment of public relations companies and the procedures to be adopted in relation to requesting tenders for public relations companies. [16210]

  Mr. Steven Norris
  Guidelines for the employment of public relations companies are contained in the working guide for Government information officers, copies of which are available in the library of the House. The procurement rules and procedures for the Department are contained in the Departmental procurement manual.

  Railway Heritage
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the Railway Heritage Group about the preservation of early records of the railway system in the last five years. [16597]

  Mr. Watts
  None. Early records which have come to light in the last five years have been sent to either the Public Record Office, the Scottish Record Office or the National Railway Museum to add to their existing collections. If the records were not appropriate for these three national bodies, they were sent to one of the local record offices listed by British Rail's records advisory panel. In future, the new independent Railway Heritage Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Gordon Higginson, will supervise the transfer of historic railway artifacts and records to the collecting institutions.

  Railtrack (Land Sales)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 March,Official Report, column 89, if he will give the total acreage of the 134 pieces of land sold by Railtrack to date. [16276]

  Mr. Watts
  I am advised by Railtrack that the total acreage of the 134 sale transactions by Railtrack to date amounts to about 41 acres.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions the royal train was used in 1993–94; what were its destinations; which members of the royal family used it and on how many occasions; and on how many occasions was it used overnight. [16768]

  Mr. Watts
  The royal train was used on 47 separate occasions, involving use of the royal train coaches on 95
  635
  days in 1993–94. I understand that the destinations were as follows:

  Aberdeen

  Aberystwyth

  Ashford (Kent)

  Bodmin Parkway

  Bridgend

  Bridgwater

  Cardiff

  Derby

  Edinburgh

  Fort William

  Gatwick Airport

  Glasgow

  Hexham

  Inverkeithing

  Lancaster

  Leeds

  Liverpool

  Lockerbie

  London

  Lympstone Commando

  Malton

  Manchester

  Mexborough

  Morpeth

  Newport

  Northallerton

  Penzance

  Plymouth

  Runcorn

  Sheffield

  Shrewsbury

  Slough

  Southampton Docks

  Stirling

  Stonehaven

  Sunderland

  Tattenham Corner

  Thirsk

  Truro

  Whitland

  Workington

  The members of the royal family and numbers of occasions on which they used the royal train were as follows:

  Number of occasions

  Her Majesty the Queen

  11

  The Duke of Edinburgh

  5

  The Prince of Wales

  17

  The Princess Royal

  6

  The Prince Edward

  1

  The Duke of Kent

  1

  The Duchess of Kent

  4

  The royal train was also used twice for state visits. The train was used overnight 48 times.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the cost of producing and 636
  circulating the last departmental annual report for each of the last three years in real terms. [16641]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The last three editions of the report have been published as Command Papers by HMSO, which has borne the printing and publishing costs with the aim of recovering these from sales revenue.

  My Department incurred additional production and distribution costs relating to the 1995 report of approximately £1,000, and additional production costs relating to the 1994 report of £9,473 at current prices. Information on the production costs of the 1993 report, and distribution costs of the 1993 and 1994 reports can be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the cost of producing and circulating the departmental annual report; what was the circulation list; how many copies were produced; how many copies were sold; and at what price. [16640]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Some 1,900 copies of my Department's report were printed and published. Of these, 500 copies were purchased by the Department for distribution to its agencies, sponsored bodies and other external contacts, as well as distribution internally for use as a working document. In addition to those copies required by Parliament, Government Departments and agencies concerned, just over 1,150 copies were produced to satisfy other sales at a price of £9.55 net. The costs of printing and publishing the report were borne by HMSO, which aims to cover these costs from sales revenue. The Department incurred additional production and distribution costs approximately £1,000.

  Statutory References
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what statutory references to hon. Members have been made in legislation introduced by his Department, or its predecessors, since 1965. [17039]

  Mr. Dorrell
  An analysis of all legislation introduced by this Department and its predecessors since 1965 for any reference of the type requested, could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It would be extremely unlikely for reference to be made specifically to an individual hon. Member. Frequent references are made to officers of state, and occasional general references are made to persons who are Members of one or other Houses of Parliament. The National Lottery etc. Act 1993 makes a reference to the Leader of the Opposition in schedule 6 concerning nominations for membership of the Millennium Commission.

  Public Library Review
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what date he received the report of the public library review from the consultants, ASLIB. [16180]

  Mr. Sproat
  The report of the public library review was received from the consultants on 23 February.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will publish his response to the public library review. [16179]

  Mr. Sproat
  I hope to make a statement shortly.

  Taylor Report Deadlines
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will extend the deadline for meeting the
  637
  recommendations of the Taylor report for those football clubs which have experienced protracted planning difficulties. [15953]

  Mr. Sproat
  Any applications for an extension to the deadlines already announced for football clubs to meet the all-seater or safe terracing will be considered on their individual merits, as occurred in 1994, following consultation with the Football Licensing Authority. Extensions will be granted only in the most exceptional circumstances and where delays in meeting the necessary criteria are unforseen and unavoidable. Whether planning difficulties would fall into such a category would depend on the facts of the individual case.

  Sports Council for England
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to be able to announce the membership of the proposed Sports Council for England. [17499]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I confirmed the Government's intention to set up new United Kingdom and English Sports Councils from 1 January 1996, subject to the grant of royal charters, on 23 March,Official Report, column 316. I announced at the time of his appointment as chairman of the GB Sports Council that Mr. Rodney Walker would in due course become first chairman of the Sports Council for England. I am pleased to be able to announce today the remaining members-designate of the Sports Council for England:

  Mr. Gerald Dennis1 Vice-Chairman

  Mr. Trevor Brooking1 Vice-Chairman

  Mr. Keith Oates1

  Ms Julia Bracewell1

  Mr. Tim Marshall1

  Mr. Geoff Thompson1

  Mr. Ian Botham

  Mr. Jeff Probyn

  Mr. Chris Boardman

  Mr. Peter Blake

  Mr. Andrew Hancock

  Mr. Jim Munn

  Mr. David Oxley

  Mr. Sam Stoker

  1 Are serving members of the present GB Sports Council.

  We proposed last July that the English council should concentrate its resources on an increased programme of direct support for governing bodies of sport for the development of sport from the grass roots to the highest competitive levels. We expect the English council to develop its policies and programmes in full and meaningful co-operation both with the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which represents the interests of governing bodies, and with local authority interests.

  I am also able to confirm that, as proposed on 8 July 1994, the present linkage between the Sports Council and the Regional Councils for Sport and Recreation will come to an end from 1 January 1996. Ministers will cease from today to renew or make fresh appointments to those bodies, but will in future appoint ministerial nominees in each of the regions of the English Sports Council. These will bring a further range of experience and expertise to the council's work, including that of local government.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15619]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The names of those persons appointed as special advisers to my Department since May 1992 are:

  Name

  Date appointed

  Date appointment ended

  Mr. Chris Hopson

  22 April 1992

  24 September 1992

  Viscountess Cobham

  12 July 1992

  24 September 1992

  Mr. Dominic Loehnis

  7 November 1992

  20 July 1994

  Tourism Promotion
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 280, who is responsible for establishing the accuracy of local claims regarding the origins of historical figures used in terms of tourism promotion. [16044]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: Where such claims are made in advertisements or sales promotions, these must conform with the appropriate self-regulatory codes of practice. These require advertisements and sales promotions to be legal, decent, honest and truthful.

  Certain claims must also comply with the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which makes it an offence for a trader knowingly or recklessly to make a false or misleading statement about the nature of services, accommodation or facilities. This Act is enforced by local authority trading standards departments.

PRIME MINISTER

  Bank of England
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he approved the statement of Government policy set out in paragraph 5 of the Bank of England press release of the text of the Deputy Governor's speech to the City branch of the Institute of Directors on 13th December 1993. [16988]

  The Prime Minister
  As stated in the 1995–96 Financial Statement and Budget Report, the role of monetary policy is to deliver low inflation. The Deputy Governor's speech to the City branch of the Institute of Directors was fully consistent with the Government's monetary policy.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the appointment of the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England requires or receives(a) Cabinet approval and (b) positive security vetting. [16942]

  The Prime Minister
  Appointments of Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England are made by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. The posts are subject to security vetting procedures.

  Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15615]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The Prime Minister's staff includes a number of appointments as special advisers, both political and expert. The names are as follows:

  Date appointed

  Date left

  Lord Poole

  May 1992

  July 1994

  Sir R. Braithwaite

  June 1992

  December 1993

  Mr. D. Green

  June 1992

  December 1994

  Mrs. K. Ramsay

  June 1992

  To date

  Miss A Warburton

  January 1994

  To date

  Mr. N. R. Blackwell

  February 1995

  To date

  Mr. S. M. Williams

  March 1995

  To date

  Ms C. Fairbairn

  March 1995

  To date

EMPLOYMENT

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the real change in take-home pay for a married couple on average earnings, with two children, between(a) 1973–74 and 1978–79 and(b) 1978–79 and 1993–94; and what were the figures in other EC countries.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Real take-home pay for a married couple on average earnings, with two children, decreased by 2 per cent. between 1973–74 and 1978–79 and increased by 41 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1993–94. Independent research shows that the take-home pay of production workers in the UK is comparable with that in Germany and ahead of that of France, the Netherlands and Denmark, once the cost of living has been taken into account.

  Pools Industry
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures in the pools industry on Merseyside. [16372]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The proposed redundancies in the pools industry are regrettable. However, staffing levels must be a matter for the commercial judgment of companies concerned. Individuals who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs from any sector can benefit from the Employment Department's extensive range of measures designed to help them find new jobs, re-train or set up in business. There are now more than 10,000 fewer unemployed in Merseyside than there were a year ago.

  Prior Options Review
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the outcome of the prior options review of the Employment Service. [17357]

  Mr. Portillo
  The review is now complete and I have placed a summary of the review's conclusions in the Library. I have accepted all its recommendations, subject to the following points. The report sets out a compelling case for the agency and demonstrates its importance to the 640
  labour market. As the evaluation undertaken in support of the review shows, the Employment Service has steadily and substantially improved its performance since it became an agency in 1990. It also confirms the value of integrating job-broking, advisory and benefit services.

  The prior options review confirms the importance of the work of the ES in helping employers and unemployed people to operate more effectively in the labour market. The policies the agency has pursued have played a significant role in helping unemployed people, particularly those at a disadvantage, to compete effectively and actively for jobs. That has assisted many employers in filling their vacancies. The ES's operation as an agency has enabled it to meet increasingly stretching performance targets, while achieving better value for money for the taxpayer.

  I therefore endorse the recommendation of the review that the agency status of the ES should be confirmed. A new framework document will be drawn up to reflect working arrangements for the operation of the jobseeker's allowance subject to the passage of the necessary legislation. The ES, along with the Benefits Agency, will have a crucial role to play in implementing the JSA and ensuring it is delivered effectively, to a high standard of service to its clients and with increased benefit to the operation to the labour market. I am pleased that the review confirms that the ES is well positioned to carry out these tasks.

  The review recommends that, once the JSA is implemented successfully, there will be scope to test the potential for private sector involvement in the delivery of functions, other than adjudication, that are carried out in ES offices. I accept this conclusion in principle. My aim would be to take forward the review's proposal to market test the work of two or three ES districts in 1997 once the JSA has been fully introduced and subject to establishing the feasibility of separating adjudication from other aspects of the work of districts.

  I shall also be asking the ES to work up proposals for a market test in, one or two regions of placing, assessment and counselling teams, which provide specialist services for unemployed people with disabilities.

  The review also made recommendations about ES fraud work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and I are considering how the fraud work currently undertaken by the ES and the BA will be organised under the JSA and will make an announcement shortly.

ENVIRONMENT

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many press officers there are in his Department currently; and what the figure was in 1979. [16574]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department of the Environment currently employs 31.5 information officers, including those employed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. All deal with the full range of information services; none are exclusively press officers.
  641
  The records for 1979 show that there were 40 professional information officers employed by the Department.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department spent on public relations during the financial year 1993–94; how much contracts with the private sector cost; and if he will list the activities covered by these contracts. [16287]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  During the 1993–94 financial year my Department part-funded one PR contract to a value of £28,000. The activities carried out included planning, design and strategic work undertaken on behalf of the Lighting Industry Federation, the National Energy Foundation and my Department's "Helping the Earth Begins at Home" domestic energy campaign to encourage the use of energy-saving light bulbs.

  Chicken Farm, Throckmorton
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received a reasoned opinion from the European Commission concerning the grant of planning permission for a chicken farm at the former airfield at Throckmorton, Worcestershire. [16767]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on sustainable development and the environment over the past year; and when he intends to respond to the recommendations in the first report of the Government's panel on sustainable development. [17181]

  Mr. Gummer
  We are today publishing "This Common Inheritance: UK Annual Report 1995", which reports progress on commitments in previous environment White Papers and the sustainable development strategy. To complement this, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is today placing in the House Library a copy of the letter which he is today sending to the Government's panel, responding to the recommendations in its first report.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps Her Majesty's Government will take to ensure that important British habitats omitted from the EU habitats directive are given statutory protection at European level. [15114]

  Mr. Atkins
  The provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the protection of sites of special scientific interest will continue to apply to sites notified by the nature conservancy councils, including those which contain habitats not listed in the EC habitats directive. The directive is intended to cover only those habitat types and species that are rare or endangered at a European level. We shall play a full part in the consideration of any revision of the habitat types listed in annexe I of the directive if proposals are made by the European Commission.

  European Environment Agency
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what measures he proposes to ensure the adequacy of the quality of environmental data provision for the European Environment Agency; [15115]

  (2) what provision he will make to ensure that dissonant information is given adequate recognition in EU environmental networks through the United Kingdom focal point. [15116]

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has established a network of organisations in the UK which will contribute to the work of the European Environment Agency. These organisations have widely recognised expertise in the fields of environmental monitoring and data collection, in particular at the national and European levels which will be the EEA's primary interest. Co-ordination of the UK network is the responsibility of the UK national focal point based in the environmental protection statistics division of my Department. The NFP will act as a channel of communication between the network and the EEA, to ensure that network members provide reliable and balanced information to the EEA and that network members are not overburdened with requests for unnecessary information.

  The EEA will also be open to receiving information form other organisations which are not part of the official network, including, for example, non-governmental organisations. Where any information provided by such organisations does not accord with that from official sources, the agency will investigate discrepancies.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the terms of reference for private sector participation in the European regional development fund objective 2 and 5b schemes. [16729]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A broad range of private sector organisations may benefit directly from ERDF grants, providing they are non-profit making and acting in the public interest.

  Although ERDF grants have not normally been available to profit-making companies in the past, the Government wish to maximise the private sector contribution to projects attracting ERDF grants, and has put to the European Commission proposals for facilitating this while ensuring that projects are of general economic benefit to the areas concerned, and that ERDF grants do not lead to excessive profits. The Commission's comments are awaited.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes that English local authorities which are to remain unchanged, following his recent decision on the recommendations of the Local Government Commission, will be required to extend compulsory competitive tendering. [17356]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I am keen to see the benefits of competition brought to local people as soon as possible. It is now clear that many shire counties and districts will retain their existing two-tier structure, and these authorities are in a position to press ahead with the extension of CCT to further manual and white-collar services as soon as possible.
  643
  On 31 January, my Department sent a consultation paper to English local authority representatives which proposed bringing forward the implementation of CCT by up to one year from the timetable initially proposed in December 1993. I have considered carefully the associations' clear and cogent arguments for not imposing a timetable which may give rise to undue haste in implementing CCT, and decided to strike a balance between the concerns they have expressed and the need to maintain a rigorous timetable for CCT.

  I therefore intend to require all authorities which are to remain unchanged in both functions and boundaries following review to advance the timetable for implementing CCT extension by six months. I will bring forward regulations to require these authorities to have achieved their competitive tendering obligations for each of the new services by the following dates:
  Security work, management of vehicles and management of parking: 1 April 1997
  Legal and construction and property services: 1 October 1997
  Finance and personnel services: 1 April 1998
  IS/IT services: 1 April 1999

  Any other shire authority which is to change either its functions, by becoming a unitary authority, or its boundaries, including minor changes in boundaries but not including the creation of new parishes within their area, will be expected to follow the timetable for each service which applies to reorganised authorities. For legal, construction and property and the further manual services these dates are already provided for in regulations. The detailed regime for the other services is currently subject to consultation and I will announce final decisions shortly.

  A number of authorities have expressed concern about the implications for the CCT timetable of the further review of individual districts. In announcing his decisions on the review of shire authorities on 2 March at column 1183 and 21 March at column 145, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was minded to ask the Local Government Commission to consider further the case for change in a small number of districts. We will consider carefully over the next few weeks which areas might be reviewed further and I anticipate an announcement will be made at the end of June. When that announcement is made I will put forward proposals for further modifying the implementation timetable for CCT extension in the areas to be considered by the Commission. Until then, all shire authorities for which no decision to implement structural change has been announced should plan on the basis of the timetable that I have set out. The additional preparation time now permitted should mitigate any delay caused by individual authorities' uncertainty as to whether they are candidates for a further review.

  EU Urban Initiative
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has decided which non-objective 1 areas in England should be included under the European structural funds Urban initiative; and if he will make a statement. [17716]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today presented the European Commission with the Government's decision on the six non-objective 1 areas in England to receive £37 million under the Urban initiative.
  644
  In reducing the 11 areas originally proposed to the European Commission, to meet their overall limits on the size of the initiative, a number of considerations have been taken into account. Urban Regeneration Minister David Curry and Sir Paul Beresford have received presentations from the eleven areas, and on the basis of area need, written proposals, ability to provide jobs and business opportunities and use the funds effectively to deliver lasting results, the following areas have been selected: Birmingham, London (Park Royal), Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield and London (Hackney/Tower Hamlets).

  This was a difficult decision to make as all the 11 areas had strong cases and I regret that we could only choose 6 areas for inclusion. The quality of work done in all the areas was excellent. I well understand the disappointment of those areas that were not able to have a place on the programme. I am grateful to all those who put so much effort into the selection process for their areas, and I am sure that the experience will be useful in taking advantage of any other suitable initiatives in the future.

  We look forward now to making good progress in negotiations with the Commission.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Shipbuilders
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes have been made to the British Shipbuilders' external financing limit for 1994–95. [17501]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The external financing limit for British Shipbuilders for 1994–95 has been increased by £15 million from minus £3.8 million to positive £11 million. This increase is attributable to the sale of the McDermott barge, the company's largest and longest-running liability. The increase in the EFL will be met from the reserve and does not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure in 1994–95.

  Statutory References
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what statutory references to hon. Members have been made in legislation introduced by his Department, or its predecessors, since 1965. [17031]

  Mr. Heseltine
  An analysis of all legislation introduced by this Department and its predecessors since 1965 for any reference to the type requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It would be extremely unlikely for reference to be made specifically to an individual hon. Member. Frequent references are made to officers of state, and occasional general references are made to persons who are Members of one or other of the Houses of Parliament.

  Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at inter-departmental

  645
  meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15608]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 27 March 1995, Official Report, column 435.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15609]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: No persons have been appointed as political advisers to this Department since May 1992.

  Coventry Airport
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport about reducing noise at Coventry airport; and what assessment he has made of the impact on economic growth in the area of(a) aircraft noise pollution and (b) the increase in night flights. [16228]

  Mr. Page
  I have had no consultations. These are matters for the local planning authorities and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to assist Coventry airport via the European Commission's objective 2 programmes; and what representations he has received from the residents of Willenhall. [16227]

  Mr. Page
  It is for Coventry city council, as owner of the airport, to make applications for grant activities that can be assisted through the west midlands objective 2 single programming document 1994–96.

  All applications received will be considered in accordance with the programme arrangements agreed between the UK Government and the European Commission.

  I have not received any representation on this matter from residents of Willenhall.

  Post Office
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post office staff have left the Post Office as a result of crown post offices being converted to agency status. [16314]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: I understand from the Post Office that some 4,000 staff have left on voluntary redundancy terms since 1989–90 as a result of crown post offices being converted to agency status. Many of them are now working in post offices either as agents or employed by agents.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial benefits the Post Office has obtained during the last and current financial years through the policy of converting crown post offices to agency status. [16312]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: I understand from the Post Office that conversions of crown post offices in the financial year 1993–94 yielded net recurring savings of £3.9 million. The figures for the current financial year are not yet available but are expected to be of a similar amount.
  646
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the crown post offices converted to agency status in Scotland since January 1994 giving the parliamentary constituency within which they lie. [16315]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: I understand from the Post Office that the following 18 crown post offices in Scotland have been converted to agency status since January 1994:

  Post Office

  Parliamentary Constituency

  Annan

  Dumfries

  Anniesland

  Glasgow Garscadden

  Blantyre

  Hamilton

  Carluke

  Lanark

  Castle Douglas

  Dumfries

  Charing Cross

  Glasgow Hillhead

  Dumbarton

  Dumbarton

  Elgin

  Moray

  Kirkcaldy

  Kirkcaldy

  Livingston

  Livingston

  Partick

  Glasgow Hillhead

  Peterhead

  Banff and Buchan

  Renfrew

  Paisley North

  Stranraer

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  Thurso

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Milngavie

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  Newington

  Edinburgh South

  Wick

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many crown post offices have been converted to agency status in(a) Scotland and (b) throughout the United Kingdom for each financial year since 1989–90. [16313]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: I understand from the Post Office that numbers of crown post offices converted to agency status in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom in each financial year since 1989–90 are as follows:

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  1989–90

  32

  153

  1990–91

  29

  164

  1991–92

  40

  147

  1992–93

  11

  108

  1993–94

  13

  117

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many crown post offices within(a) Scotland and (b) throughout the United Kingdom the Post Office views as appropriate for agency status. [16309]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: I understand from the Post Office that it uses the following criteria for deciding on the appropriateness of agency status for a given office:
  the customer service benefit of changing, e.g. longer opening
  hours, better location;
  financial benefits;
  ability to redeploy any surplus staff;
  availability of a suitable partner to become agent.

  Since some of these factors have a degree of uncertainty attaching to them, the Post Office does not have a fixed view about the number of crown post offices appropriate for agency status. The Post Office continues to convert crown post offices to agency status where the right circumstances prevail.

  Corporate Insolvencies
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of corporate insolvencies in Scotland for each of the years 1993 and 1994, and in respect of each year(a) the number of reports submitted by practitioners, (b) the number of court proceedings commenced and (c) the number of disqualification orders made under the Companies (Disqualification of Directors) Act 1985; and if he will express the last figure as a percentage of the total number of corporate insolvencies in each year. [16049]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The figures requested are as follows:

  1993

  1994

  Corporate Insolvencies

  941

  695

  (a) Conduct reports submitted by Insolvency Practitioners

  241

  215

  (b) Disqualification Proceedings Commenced

  75

  114

  (c) Disqualification Orders Made

  54

  72

  Disqualification Orders as a Percentage of Corporate Insolvencies

  5.74

  10.36

  Note:

  1. The figures for corporate insolvencies are for the numbers of companies and include a few members voluntary liquidation cases (which are not insolvent) which cannot be separated in the total figures provided by Companies House.

  2. The number of proceedings refer to individuals. Proceedings and results are not necessarily finalised in the year of issue, and conduct reports may relate to companies which failed in preceding two years.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many press officers there are in his Department currently; and what the figures were for(a) his Department and(b) the Department of Energy in 1979. [16560]

  Mr. Heseltine
  There are 17 press officers currently employed in my Department. Comparable figures for 1979 are not available.

  Companies House and the Patent Office
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) in what circumstances he will allow in-house bids at Companies House and the Patent Office, following his recent statements on the futures of these two organisations; [16985]

  (2) what method will be used at Companies House and the Patent Office to determine whether or not it will provide value for money to contract out services in comparison to continuing with the current in-house provision. [16979]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Existing employees may bid for contracts on the basis that, if successful, they would carry out the work as private sector contractors.

  The basis for assessing bids will be overall value for money, including both cost and quality of service. On cost, bids will be assessed against the benchmark of forecast costs to carry out the function within the public sector, taking into account any planned efficiencies.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the full cost, from 1991 to date, of the reviews into the futures of(a) Companies House and (b) the Patent Office. [16980]
  648
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The full costs of the reviews into the futures of(a) Companies House and (b) the Patent Office are not available, although internal and external costs are taken into account in the DTI efficiency plan. The costs of consultancy advice to the reviews since 1991 are £283,000 and £135,000 respectively, both figures being exclusive of VAT.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assurances he gave the member of the European Commission responsible for regional development concerning the application of the additionality principles agreed with her predecessors that would apply to the reduced grant in aid to the Welsh Development Agency and increased dependence of the agency on the European regional development fund; [16848]

  (2) if he will list the principal points raised in his meeting with the European Commission member responsible for regional development on Thursday 23 March; what representations were made in relation to the additionality issue; and if he will make a statement. [16849]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 28 March 1995]: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy and I both met Dr. Wulf-Mathies on 23 March. We discussed means of improving the European structural funds value for money throughout the EU; the importance of combating fraud and mismanagement; EU grants in Northern Ireland; regional challenge; and the importance of private sector financial contributions to structural funds programmes.

  The Commissioner raised points about the composition of United Kingdom structural funds monitoring committees, and the resources available for the administration of programmes. These are matters for the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Wulf-Mathies mentioned that the Commission had received representations from Merseyside and from Wales described as concerning "additionality". It appeared, however, that these representations did not relate to the regulatory provision, which requires additionality only at the level of each objective, not separately for individual areas, measures, projects or beneficiaries. The Welsh Development Agency was not mentioned.

  Temporary Export Licences
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department refused any applications for temporary export licences for companies to exhibit at the IDEX 95 defence exhibition held in the United Arab Emirates in March. [15968]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  No.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many temporary export licences were issued to companies wishing to exhibit at the International Defence Exhibition, IDEX, in Abu Dhabi in March. [15967]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Licences for the temporary export of controlled goods are valid for 12 months. In the 12 months leading up to IDEX, beginning 1 April 1994, the Export Control Organisation issued 125 licences for temporary export valid for Abu Dhabi and the United Arab Emirates. Licences for temporary export are usually for the purpose of "display", "exhibition", "demonstration" and similar reasons. The particular forum
  649
  for the display or exhibition of the goods in question is not always specified. I cannot therefore say specifically whether or not all the licences referred to above were to enable the goods in question to be exhibited at IDEX.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Journalists
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will estimate the number of journalists with parliamentary press passes in(a) 1975, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that the figures are(a) 356 and (b) 407. The current figure is 489.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will arrange to monitor for a week the number of journalists in the Gallery during each hour the House sits.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Yes. I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to make the arrangements for the first full sitting week after the House returns from the Easter Adjournment.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, if an hon. Member in receipt of a gift or loan whose purpose, wholly or in part, is intended to avoid disqualification from the House is required to register it.

  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  The liability of an hon. Member to register an interest can be decided only by the Registrar in the light of specific information about an individual case.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the cost of producing and circulating the annual report of the Cabinet Office for each of the last 10 years in real terms. [16628]

  Mr. Horam
  The annual Cabinet Office departmental report was first published in 1991. The printing and publishing costs are borne by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which aims to recover these from sales revenue.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the cost of producing and circulating the last departmental annual report; what was the circulation list; how many copies were produced; and how many copies were sold and at what price. [16627]

  Mr. Horam
  The printing and publishing costs were borne by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which aims to recover these from sales revenue. The report was circulated to the Prime Minister, OPSS Ministers, Opposition spokesmen, Parliament, Cabinet Office senior management, and contributors in HMSO, COI and the other organisations included within the report. There were 1,500 copies printed, and just over 900 copies were distributed for sale to the public, at a cover price of £11.55.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 27 and 28 March 1995 and if he will make a statement. [17498]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  At this meeting, the Council again considered possible rules on transport of live animals. The Commissioner floated some new ideas which would protect animal welfare better than those in the current presidency compromise. It was agreed that these should be examined at official level before the Council returns to the subject in May with a view to reaching a final conclusion.

  The Council also discussed the agri-monetary effects of the recent turbulence on international currency markets, as a result of which certain green currencies may need to be revalued according to the Community rules. A further Council will be held on 10 April to take decisions on this aspect, but the Commission indicated that it would use its powers to ensure that revaluations did not come into effect before 5 May.

  The 10 April Council meeting is also expected to take decisions on the reform of the Community sugar regime. At this meeting we again argued that any cuts in sugar quotas necessary for the Community to meet its GATT commitments should be targeted on those countries with the largest surpluses.

  The Council extended the marketing years for milk and beef since farm prices for 1995–96 have not yet been set.

  In other discussions, the United Kingdom strongly opposed any proposal to place limits on nitrates in lettuce which cannot be fully justified by the scientific evidence.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the budget forecast for the common agricultural policy in 1995; and what proportion of this fund will be allocated to the United Kingdom. [15796]

  Mr. Jack
  The draft supplementary and amending CAP budget for 1995, the latest official forecast, has been set at 36,897 mecu or £29,283 million—1,047 mecu or £831 million below the guideline. It is set in relation to forecast expenditure throughout the Community, and not on the basis of allocations to individual member states. The level of UK CAP receipts will depend on a variety of factors, such as production levels, quantities exported, and purchases in and sales out of intervention storage. It is forecast at £2,873 million for the 1995–96 financial year.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 63, on water and sewerage charges, if he will define disproportionate cost. [15934]

  Mr. Jack
  Disproportionate cost is when it is estimated that the staff costs of preparing a full reply to the parliamentary question are likely to exceed £450.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what was the cost of producing and circulating the last Departmental annual report; what was the circulation list; how many copies were produced; how many copies were sold; and at what price; [16658]

  (2) what was the cost of producing and circulating Departmental annual report for each of the last 10 years in real terms. [16659]

  Mr. Jack
  A total of 2,250 copies of the 1995 departmental report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the intervention board were produced. About half were required by Parliament, the Ministry, its agencies and the intervention board, the remainder being produced for sale at £19.60 net. Actual sales figures are not yet available.

  Departmental reports were published for the first time in 1991. The estimated cost of producing the 1995 report, including the cost of the Ministry's staff resources and the use of professional typesetters, was very approximately £100,000. Similar figures are not available for earlier years.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many press officers there are in his Department currently; and what the figure was in 1979. [16564]

  Mr. Jack
  The number of press officers, including the chief press offficer, employed by MAFF is seven. In 1979, the number was the same.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Llywd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when it was decided to include off-farm income in the formula for determining the average income of hill farmers for the purposes of hill livestock compensatory allowances; and if he will make a statement. [16782]

  Mr. Jack
  Off-farm income has never been included in the calculations of farm income taken into account in determining the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances. The Government have made no decision, nor are there plans, to do so.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister what representations he has received about the Meat Hygiene Service's proposed charges and if he will make a statement. [175001]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The chief executive has kept me fully informed of the progress of consultation on the Meat Hygiene Service's proposed charges for 1995–96, and of the industry's request for some short-term assistance to facilitate the transition to the new system.

  While I cannot take final decisions until the statutory consultation exercise has been completed in mid-April, I am minded to make available transitional assistance to allow the MHS to offer a rebate on its hourly rate for meat inspectors of £2 per hour for the first six months of 1995–96 and £1 per hour for the second six months, and
  652
  to set a ceiling on the official veterinary surgeon hourly rate of £35 per hour.

  In making any such rebates, the MHS would need to observe the requirements of the European legislation which prohibits subsidisation of inspection charges below the level of the Community standard charge.

  I will shortly be publishing performance targets for the MHS which are designed to ensure that the chief executive maximises efficiency and minimises costs. The MHS will be expected to recover the full economic cost of its chargeable services from the industry from 1996–97 onwards.

TREASURY

  EU Fraud
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to help combat fraud in the European Union, with particular reference to the spending of the common agricultural policy and structural or cohesion budgets. [14974]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Steps are being taken to combat fraud in all areas of the European Community budget.

  At the Essen European Council last December, the Prime Minister made a number of proposals to help tackle fraud, as well as waste and mismanagement. These are now being taken forward. Member states will report back to the European Council later in the year on what they are doing to combat fraud against the Community budget on their own territories. The Council is actively pursuing agreement on a legally binding instrument on national criminal law protection of the Community budget, as well as on a regulation on the protection of the Community's financial interests which would establish a framework for extending Community administrative penalties to all areas of the Community budget.

  Significant progress is being made against fraud under the common agricultural policy. Administrative penalties are being applied on overclaims and member states are being "disallowed" previous agricultural expenditure where it is found not to be in accordance with the applicable rules. CAP reform is addressing weaknesses in controls that have previously led to fraud and irregularity. This includes a Commission proposal for a new procedure to reform the clearance of CAP accounts, involving in-year audits to improve management, and preventative and corrective action with suggestions from the Commission on possible changes to procedures instead of financial penalties. Also well advanced is Council consideration of a significant measure for tackling fraud, known colloquially as the CAP blacklist. This would set down a framework for member states to identify, and to notify each other of, traders who have deliberately, or as a result of serious negligence, committed an irregularity prejudicial to Community funds or who are subject to "well found suspicion" of having done so.

  In July 1994, Commission regulations were introduced to ensure that member states report irregularities under the structural funds and the cohesion fund. These require member states to submit quarterly reports to the Commission on any irregularities which have been the

  653
  subject of initial administrative or judicial investigations. These reports, the first of which was presented by member states to the Commission at the end of last year, will provide a more complete picture of fraud, financial mismanagement and waste in the structural funds.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average annual increase in Government expenditure for the years(a) 1965 to 1970, (b) 1970 to 1974, (c) 1974 to 1979, (d) 1979 to 1989 and (e) 1989 to 1995. [16810]

  Mr. Aitken
  Figures are readily available only for financial years. The table shows the average annual percentage increases in general government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, over the relevant periods.

  From

  To

  Increase per cent.

  1965–66

  1970–71

  9.7

  1970–71

  1974–75

  18.7

  1974–75

  1979–80

  16.1

  1979–80

  1989–90

  8.5

  1989–90

  1995–96

  6.8

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cost-benefit analysis he has(a) crried out and (b) plans to carry out on the effects of hypothecating the income generated from fines due to speeding offences detected by automatic cameras to the provision of further speed cameras and the processing of the resultant offence data. [15661]

  Mr. Aitken
  No cost-benefit analysis has been carried out, nor are there any plans to do so. The Government take the view that, in general, hypothecation of revenue is not the best way of matching resources to needs.

  Bank Reserves
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government ceased to require United Kingdom banks to hold reserve requirements on deposit with the Bank of England. [15899]

  Mr. Nelson
  The requirement ceased on 20 August 1981, when new arrangements for monetary control were introduced by the Bank of England.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of producing and circulating the departmental annual report for each of the last 10 years in real terms. [16618]

  Mr. Aitken
  Departmental reports were published for the first time in 1991. The reports for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments have been published as Command Papers by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which has borne the printing and publishing costs with the aim of recovering these from the sales revenue.
  654
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of producing and circulating the last departmental annual report; what was the circulation list; how many copies were produced; how many copies were sold; and at what price. [16617]

  Mr. Aitken
  A total of 1,500 copies of the departmental reports for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments were printed and published as Cm 2817, 2818 and 2819. In addition to those copies required by Parliament and the Government Departments and agencies concerned, 1,000 copies of each report were produced to satisfy other sales at a net price of £18.40 for Cm 2817, £7.35 for Cm 2818 and £6.65 for Cm 2819. The costs of printing and publishing these reports were borne by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which aims to recover its costs from sales revenue.

  Late Payment of Debts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is planning to take to encourage companies to pay promptly. [16619]

  Mr. Aitken
  A package of measures aimed at bringing about a change in business culture and hence shorter payment times was announced in the Competitiveness White Paper last May. That package is being implemented. The Government will continue to keep the position under review. If there has not been a significant improvement by 1996, they will review the case for legislation.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the overall percentage change in the value of the £ sterling since 1 September 1992 against(a) the dollar, (b) the Deutchsmark and (c) the basket of currencies. [16862]

  Mr. Nelson
  Between 1 September 1992 and 27 March 1995, sterling has fallen by(a) 20 per cent. against the dollar, (b) 19 per cent. against the Deutchsmark and (c) 15 per cent. on an exchange rate index basis.

  Export Margins
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what influence the levels of export margins have on decisions on interest rate levels; and what criteria are used to determine whether export margins are considered to be excessive. [16990]

  Mr. Nelson
  Interest rates decisions are based on a wide range of information, including monetary and other financial indicators, indicators of activity and indicators of costs. The price of UK exports, and hence the export margin, is a matter for the individual firms concerned. But export volumes in the fourth quarter were up 13½ per cent. on a year earlier, so margins do not appear excessive.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what expenditure has been incurred recently in order to finance privatisation costs; and if he will make a statement. [17359]
  655
  Sir George Young
  Expenditure has been incurred to cover:

  (i) the residual costs arising from the sale of National Power and PowerGen shares in March 1995, estimated at £32,000,000.

  (ii) expenditure, estimated at £600,000 in connection with the Treasury's sale of privatised companies debt this year.

  Costs incurred on this vote will be offset by receipts appropriate-in-aid. Such receipts will include the second instalments on National Power and PowerGen shares, estimated to be some £1.1 billion.

  Parliamentary approval of these new services is being sought in the 1995–96 main estimate for HM Treasury's sale of sales of residual Government shareholdings and Government holdings of privatised companies' debt vote, class XVII, vote 15.

  Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £32,600,000 will be met from repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Profit-related Pay Schemes
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the tax to be forgone by the Treasury in 1995–96 through profit-related pay schemes. [15843]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: An estimate of the cost of income tax relief for profit-related pay schemes in 1994–95 is published in table 1.6 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1994, a copy of which is in the Library. An estimate of the cost in 1995–96 is not yet available.

  Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15605]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The special advisers appointed to the Treasury since May 1992 are as follows:

  Name

  Period of appointment

  D. W. D. Cameron

  11 May 1992–21 June 1993

  R. Darwall

  8 February 1993–27 May 1993

  Mrs. T. Keswick

  1 June 1993–

  D. Ruffley

  28 May 1993–

  J. Bercow

  20 March 1995–

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Statutory References
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what statutory references to hon. Members have been made in legislation introduced by his Department, or its predecessors, since 1965. [16094]

  Sir John Wheeler
  An analysis of all legislation introduced by the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office and its predecessors since 1965 for any reference to the type requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It would be extremely 656
  unlikely for reference to be made specifically to an individual hon. Member. Frequent references are made to officers of state, and occasional general references are made to persons who are members of one or other of the Houses of Parliament.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15556]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding reply 27 March 1995]: At present there are some 30 regulations unique to Northern Ireland which impact on business. Five of these have been targeted for repeal or amendment and legislative action is in progress.

  Other Northern Ireland regulations which replicate Great Britain provisions, and also impact on business, are reviewed and action taken in the light of decisions taken in Great Britain.

  Fair Employment Small Business Scheme
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 227, on what basis James Hawthorne CBE was judged to have satisfied the criteria for established management consultants for the fair employment small business scheme as set out in the answer of 27 February, Official Report, column 402. [16045]

  Mr. Ancram
  On the basis of his experience at senior management level for a period well in excess of five years, Mr. Hawthorne was judged by the Fair Employment Commission to have the necessary experience of human resource management, including recruitment and selection procedures. In addition, Mr. Hawthorne was able to demonstrate to the interviewing panel that his knowledge of the fair employment legislation and code of practice satisfied the criteria for appointment.

  Rate Relief
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the kinds of recreations which qualify certain hereditaments for rate relief under article 31 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 as amended. [16046]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The relevant recreations are specified in the schedule to the Rates (Recreational Hereditaments) Order (Northern Ireland) 1979, SR 1979 No. 428, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the amounts paid each year to the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools under each of paragraphs 11, 13, 14 and 15 of schedule 8 to the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the amounts repaid under paragraph 16. [16047]
  657
  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Paragraph 11 staff salaries

  Paragraph 13 allowances

  Paragraph 14 total recurrent grant from DENI

  Paragraph 15 capital expenditure grant from DENI

  1990–91

  536,398

  13,878

  678,881

  86,750

  1991–92

  583,826

  44,313

  778,000

  68,974

  1992–93

  607,523

  60,522

  832,000

  90,906

  1993–94

  753,038

  52,040

  1,018,000

  92,986

  No moneys have been due to be repaid in the above years under paragraph 16.

  Police Complaints Commission
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has reached his decisions on the recommendations contained in the report of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints "Triennial Review 1991–1994". [17167]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Yes. On 22 March 1994 Official Report, column 148, I announced the publication of the report and that I intended to consult various interested bodies before reaching any decisions on the recommendations made. I have now given further consideration to the recommendations in the light of the comments received.

  I am glad that the commission considers that the system works well in practice and that it is rigorous and effective. However, like the commission, I am determined that the system should be reviewed and improved. Consequently, I have given deep thought to the commission's proposals and to the way forward and I am glad to say that I have been able to accept, in total or in part, most of the recommendations made.

  I have accepted in full two recommendations. I intend to bring forward legislation which will establish a tribunal, chaired by the Chief Constable and balanced by two assessors drawn from an independent panel appointed for the purpose, to hear certain types of disciplinary procedures. (Recommendation 5). It is in the nature of these types of case that the commission instigates the disciplinary proceedings and I have accepted that it is then inappropriate for the commission to be represented on the tribunal hearing the charges as it is at present. I share the commission's considered view that the Chief Constable, who is responsible for discipline within his service, should retain a leading role.

  I also agree that there should be a review of the use of the informal resolution procedure. (Recommendation 6). Use of the procedure in Northern Ireland has more than doubled—to 10 per cent.—in the last five years. In Great Britain, around 30 per cent. of complaints are informally resolved. I accept that a review of the procedure in Northern Ireland should be carried out.

  I have also accepted three of the recommendations in part.

  The commission reaffirmed that it wished to have the power to supervise some non-complaint matters where it appears to the Commission that such supervision was necessary because of either the gravity of the matter or the exceptional circumstances involved. (Recommendation 2). I am unable to agree that the commission should have the power to "call in" cases
  658
  when no complaint is made. I am, however, willing to agree that the commission should have a statutory power to draw matters to my attention. It would then be my responsibility to refer appropriate cases to the commission. This arrangement will enable the commission to make known its concerns in non-complaint cases without impinging on my statutory responsibilities or those of the police authority and the Chief Constable.

  The commission also recommended that it should be notified at once where death or serious bodily harm has been caused or may have been caused to any person by a police officer. (Recommendation 3). I have decided to accept that the commission should be notified of all deaths which may have been caused by a police officer even if there is no prima facie evidence of police misconduct or oppressive behaviour, and this will be included in legislation when the opportunity arises. I will not, at present, extend this cover to incidents of injury. I have accepted the view that such a requirement would cause administrative difficulties and over-reporting.

  I have given further thought to the commission's recommendations that it should be given the discretion to concentrate its resources of those cases of public concern which are deserving of very close scrutiny, rather than being constrained by the mandatory supervision of certain cases. (Recommendation 4). I have decided not to accept this recommendation as I feel that mandatory supervision of all cases involving death or serious injury is an important safeguard in our complaints system. It was agreed after the last triennial review that legislation would be introduced to allow the commission to withdraw from mandatory supervision in those cases where the injury turns out to be less serious than was first thought. This provision will be included in legislation in the near future. I want to see the differences which will follow on from this change before deciding whether any more radical approach is necessary.

  Finally, I have decided not to accept the recommendation that the commission should be in a position to direct the Chief Constable to record a complaint where there is a dispute over its validity. (Recommendation 1). I again share the views of the Home Secretary. The autonomy of chief constables in discharging their responsibilities to maintain law and order within their areas is an important constitutional issue. One important factor in that autonomy is the Chief Constable's authority over the actions and discipline of his officers. I am reluctant to diminish that authority by giving an outside agency, even one as respected as the commission, power to decide what should or should not be a complaint.

  I would like to pay tribute to the commission and to its work over the period of this review from 1991 to 1994. The period saw the commission tackle its responsibilities enthusiastically. Two important features stand out. First, there was a very substantial increase in the number of investigations in which the commission undertook supervision. Secondly, the commission undertook a major initiative to publicise the mechanism for raising complaints about policing in Northern Ireland. The existence of a widely known and trusted system for dealing with complaints makes a major contribution to maintaining and building public confidence in the

  659
  integrity and probity of the police service. We have recognised the importance of the commission's work by making available this year substantial extra resources to help it meet the demands on its services.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Anglo-Israeli Relations
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between Britain and Israel. [14940]

  Mr. Hurd
  Bilateral relations with Israel are excellent. During his recent visit to Israel the Prime Minister and Mr. Rabin agreed that they have never been better.

  Serbia
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with his counterparts abroad about the need to strengthen sanctions against Serbia. [14959]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our partners and allies regard sanctions as an important element in our efforts to achieve a peace settlement in Bosnia. In response to President Milosevic's decision last summer to support the Contact Group plan and close the border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to all but humanitarian goods, the United Nationals Security Council decided to suspend sanctions on international air links with Belgrade, a ferry service between Montenegro and Italy and in the fields of sporting and cultural relations. At the same time United Nations sanctions against the Bonsnia Serbs, who have refused to accept the Contact Group plan were tightened. We continue to support, together with other states, the effective enforcement of these sanctions.

  UN Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss the future of peacekeeping operations with the Secretary General of the United Nations. [14962]

  Mr. Hurd
  We are a major troop contributor to UN peacekeeping operations, and will continue to hold regular discussions with the UN Secretary General on all aspects of peacekeeping.

  We are concerned by legislative proposals in the US Congress which would severely restrict US contributions to assessed peacekeeping costs. The proposals would require the United States to deduct from its assessed contributions all costs incurred directly by the US for operations in support of UN Security Council resolutions.

  If these proposals were implemented the established system of financing UN peacekeeping operations would unravel. We welcome the commitment by the US Administration to oppose.

  Security Guarantees
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline what steps the Government are taking to provide non-nuclear states with binding security guarantees; and if he will make a statement. [14963]

  Mr. David Davis
  We already provide non-nuclear weapon states with security assurances in which we undertake not to use nuclear weapons against them unless they attack us in association of alliance with a nuclear weapon state and further to seek UN Security Council action to provide assistance to any such state that is attacked with nuclear weapons.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [14964]

  Mr. James Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support Britain is giving to the middle east peace process. [14942]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's recent visit to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan underlined Britain's firm support for the peace process. He announced an increase in aid to the Palestinians to £82 million over the three years 1994 to 1997.

  Brunei
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations, including trade relations, with Brunei. [14965]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Britain has very close and friendly relations with Brunei. Our links are strong in many areas including trade, education and defence. The Sultan is a regular and most welcome visitor to this country.

  Brunei is our 43rd largest export market. In 1994, UK exports totalled £418 million, having risen by 28.7 per cent. from the 1993 figure. In 1993, Britain's share of OECD exports to Brunei was 34 per cent.

  South Africa
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about British relations with South Africa. [14966]

  Mr. Baldry
  During the state visit by Her Majesty the Queen to South Africa last week, President Mandela expressed warm appreciation for Britain's contribution to strengthening and developing these relations.

  United States of America
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to hold discussions with the United States Secretary of State in respect of United States relations with member states of the European Union. [14967]

  Mr. Hurd
  I have regular discussions with the US Secretary of State on many subjects including EU-US relations.
  661
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with the United States of America. [14976]

  Mr. Hurd
  They are excellent.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British trade relations with the United States of America. [14977]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The US is our largest trading partner. United Kingdom exports of goods to the US were worth £16.8 billion last year, and two-way trade in services was worth over $35 billion in 1993.

  United Kingdom-Iranian Relations
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom-Iranian relations. [14968]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We restored relations with Iran on 27 September 1990 on the basis of mutual respect and non-interference in each other's affairs.

  We and our European partners made clear at the European Council at Edinburgh in December 1992 that improvements in Iran's behaviour in a number of areas, particularly human rights, the fatwa on Rushdie and terrorism, would be important in determining the extent to which closer relations and confidence in Iran could be developed. This remains European Union policy.

  Georgia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new plans he has to improve bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and Georgia. [14970]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During Georgian Head of State Eduard Shevardnadze's visit to the UK in February my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that a British embassy will be opened in Tbilisi later this year. The UK has recently doubled its technical assistance programme through the know how fund to £1.2 million for projects in the near term.

  The British Council plans to expand its teachers' resource centre in Tbilisi to a general information centre, and to promote the teaching of modern English.

  World Service
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current grant in aid from the Foreign Office to the BBC World Service; and what percentage increase he expects for the next funding triennium; and if he will make a statement. [14971]

  Mr. Baldry
  The grant in aid to the BBC World Service in the current financial year is £175.2 million. It will rise to £178.8 million in each of the following two years of the current triennium, that is 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Discussions on the level of funding for the next triennium from 1997–98 to 1999–2000 will begin early next year. The actual funding for that triennium will be determined during the 1996 public expenditure survey.

  "Britain in the World" Conference
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the "Britain in the World" conference taking place in London on 29 March. [14972]

  Mr. Hurd
  The conference on Britain in the world is taking place today. It has been organised by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in association with Her Majesty's Government, as part of the institute's 75th anniversary celebrations.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the opening speech. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales gave a lunch-time address. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) will speak this afternoon. So will I.

  I hope the conference will stimulate an open and lively debate on Britain's overseas interests.

  European Legislation
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the number of proposals for new legislation being put forward by the European Commission for 1995; and what the figure was in each of the last three years. [14975]

  Mr. David Davis
  We welcome the emphasis on subsidiarity in the Commission's work programme for 1995. We will examine carefully every proposal which is tabled, on the basis of subsidiarity and the national interest.

  The number of proposals for new legislative initiatives tabled by the Commissions in the last three years is:

  1992: 89

  1993: 75

  1994: 42

  NATO Information Budget
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current NATO information budget; what are its main purposes; what was the budget(a) five and (b) 10 years ago in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  The budget of the NATO office of information and press for 1995 is 192,583,000 Belgian francs. In 1990, the figure was 171,400,000 Belgian francs. The figure for 1985 is not available.

  The purpose of NATO's information work is to create and reinforce a positive climate of informed public opinion concerning the alliance, encourage informed dialogue about the alliance and current issues, and explain current policy.

  Mrs. Patricia Bland
  Mr. David Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the authorities in the Republic of Ireland with regard to the legal difficulties encountered by Mrs. Patricia Bland, a British subject, arising out of the incestuous rape of her daughter. [16048]

  Mr. Baldry
  None. The legal process is continuing: the case is still before the Irish courts. It is a matter for them.

  Treaties and Agreements
  Mrs. Anne Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Congleton of 28 February, what steps he is taking to identify all those treaties and agreements to which the United Kingdom is a signatory but of which his Department has lost sight; if he will list those treaties and agreements so far identified; if he will indicate in each case the main provisions of the treaty or agreement and the action which he now proposes to take to comply with the provisions of those treaties and agreements; and if he will make a statement. [16524]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: Treaty records, which were opened in 1835, show that the United Kingdom is now signatory to some 2,460 multilateral and 9,273 bilateral treaties.

  The treaties cover a wide range of subjects and most fall to other Government Departments to administer. Each treaty would need to be researched individually to determine its present status. The information sought is not therefore readily available from treaty records and could be provided only after lengthy research at disproportionate cost.

  Somalia
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made as to the implications for human rights of the introduction of Sharia law in parts of Somalia. [14938]

  Mr. Baldry
  Parts of Somalia have long suffered from anarchy and general lawlessness. There is evidence that in some areas the introduction of Sharia law, with broad consent, has improved the security of ordinary people. Whatever the system of law, it is important that it is applied fairly and with respect to the dignity of the individual.

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the international community to assist the Government of Burundi to reform its army so that it is acceptable to both Hutus and Tutsis in the country. [16604]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government of Burundi has not requested assistance in reforming its army. Should it do so, we believe that the international community would be willing to consider the request.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made about the widespread arrests in Nigeria, with particular reference to General Obasanjo, and others who were working for a return to democratic rule. [15533]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: We have urged the Nigerian Government to ensure that former President Obasanjo is subject to due process of law: and is either released or promptly charged. I understand that he remains under house arrest, and that others recently arrested remain in detention, including Shehu Yar'Adua, leading member of the National Constitutional Conference. The Commonwealth
  664
  Secretary-General and the European Union have also issued statements expressing concern, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

WALES

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of goat pox were reported in each year since 1985. [15974]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of goat pox have been recorded in Wales since 1991 when the disease became notifiable. This disease is not know to have ever occurred in the UK.

  Clinical Outcome Indicators
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to publish health service clinical outcome indicators similar to those published in December 1994 by the Secretary of State for Scotland, in respect of individual health authorities and hospitals in Wales. [15870]

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office is working with the medical and nursing professions to agree suitable clinical outcome indicators for Wales, and the best method of publishing them.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines his Department has issued to its agencies and other public bodies under its authority in respect of the employment of public relations companies and the procedures to be adopted in relation to requesting tenders for public relations companies. [16209]

  Mr. Redwood
  No general guidance has been issued to public bodies.

  The guidance applying to Government Departments is set out in a Cabinet Office letter, reprinted as annex 2 to "Publicity Services For Government Departments", NAO 1989—HC 46. The general principles of value for money and propriety are applicable to public bodies, and the letter is referred to in "Non-Departmental Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments", Her Majesty's Treasury/Cabinet Office 1992, which has been issued to non-departmental public bodies in Wales.

  Normal tendering procedures should be followed in appointing public relations companies.

  Bridge Strengthening Works
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of bridge reinforcement work undertaken on main roads in Wales in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement. [16781]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Cost of the bridge strengthening works undertaken on trunk roads in Wales in 1993–94 was £2,407,000. The remainder of the main road network is the responsibility of the eight Welsh county councils.

  Hill Farmers (Income)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if off-farm income was included in the formula for determining the average income of Welsh hill farmers in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement. [16783]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The estimates of Welsh hill farm income for 1993–94 included only those miscellaneous off-farm receipts which were derived from use of the farm business resources. They took account of such items as contracting work which involved farm labour and machinery, but then excluded any income earned by the farmer from employment or self-employment away from the farm and not involving farm resources, investment income pensions and the like.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives are being pursued by the Health Education Council for Wales to educate the public about the benefits of regular brushing and cleaning of teeth; and if he will make a statement. [16773]

  Mr. Richards
  The Health Education Council has no remit in Wales.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of local government reform on the work of those engaged in combating drug abuse; and if he will make a statement. [16836]

  Mr. Richards
  We have allowed adequate time for shadow authorities to plan services and to put arrangements in place to ensure that those services are delivered to at least the same standard following reorganisation as before.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 260, on which date he intends to publish his action plan for the Countryside Council for Wales; to whom he will circulate this publication; and what scope he has allowed for consultation with the full council on its contents as soon as it has been published. [16930]

  Mr. Redwood
  The action plan will be issued shortly with a press notice and will be available on request. The Countryside Council for Wales have been consulted during the formulation of the plan.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 260, if he will list those individuals and organisation whose advice he (a) sought and (b) used in constructing the action plan for the Countryside Council for Wales. [16949]

  Mr. Redwood
  Advice from the Countryside Council for Wales, on which a wide range of interests is represented, was sought and used in preparation of the action plan. In addition, I took account of views expressed to me by a variety of interests during the preparation of the plan.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Overcrowding
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons are currently assessed to be overcrowded; and if he will list them, indicating the number of places by which they exceed their quota. [16688]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 28 March 1995]: 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 Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 29 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many prisons are currently assessed to be overcrowded. The attached table, which will be placed in the Library of the House, lists the 50 prisons in which, on 28 February, the number of prisoners exceeded the Certified Normal Accommodation in use and by how much.

  CNA in use

  Population

  Number of prisoners in excess of CNA in use

  Birmingham

  567

  821

  254

  Blakenhurst

  649

  652

  3

  Bristol

  464

  470

  6

  Brixton

  484

  639

  155

  Brockhill

  111

  130

  19

  Camp Hill

  378

  403

  25

  Canterbury

  184

  267

  83

  Cardiff

  321

  441

  120

  Channings Wood

  482

  569

  87

  Chelmsford

  251

  403

  152

  Cookham Wood

  120

  139

  19

  Dartmoor

  538

  560

  22

  Doncaster

  771

  780

  9

  Dorchester

  147

  205

  58

  Durham

  448

  643

  195

  Exeter

  260

  385

  125

  Feltham

  844

  854

  10

  Gartree

  277

  280

  3

  Glen Parva

  767

  771

  4

  Gloucester

  202

  265

  63

  Grendon

  190

  199

  9

  Holloway

  517

  526

  9

  Hull

  328

  404

  76

  Leeds

  814

  1,066

  252

  Leicester

  192

  352

  160

  Lewes

  312

  318

  6

  Lincoln

  444

  625

  181

  Lindholme

  567

  583

  16

  Liverpool

  973

  1,274

  301

  Low Newton

  198

  245

  47

  Manchester

  830

  899

  69

  New Hall

  169

  200

  31

  North Sea Camp

  201

  205

  4

  Northallerton

  150

  194

  44

  Norwich

  333

  348

  15

  Pentonville

  559

  731

  172

  Preston

  342

  488

  146

  Pucklechurch

  56

  69

  13

  Reading

  182

  185

  3

  Rochester

  294

  301

  7

  Send

  113

  124

  11

  Shepton Mallet

  158

  192

  34

  Shrewsbury

  168

  281

  113

  667

  CNA in use

  Population

  Number of prisoners in excess of CNA in use

  Stafford

  358

  517

  159

  Swansea

  151

  229

  78

  Swinfen Hall

  182

  183

  1

  The Wolds

  320

  330

  10

  Wormwood Scrubs

  714

  822

  108

  Wandsworth

  922

  968

  46

  Winchester

  261

  364

  103

  Note:

  CNA in use does not include those places which are not available for immediate use, for example: damaged cells, cells affected by building works and cells not being used because of a shortage of staff resources.

  Prison Service
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made on increasing private sector involvement in the Prison Service. [17602]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In addition to existing plans for private sector involvement in the Prison Service, Lowdham Grange prison near Nottingham will be rebuilt as a 500-bed, category B prison to be operated by the private sector. This will increase from 12 to 13 the number of prisons to be operated by the private sector in the initial phase of the private sector programme.

  Four prisons are already under private management and tendering for the first two of the six entirely new prisons to be designed, constructed, managed and financed by the private sector is nearing completion.

  The programme of contracting out court escort and custody work is being accelerated. Contracts covering south-west England and south Wales, south-east England and the west midlands and central Wales will be let early in 1996. This builds on the considerable success of the programme so far. Escapes have been reduced by 40 per cent. in east midlands and Humberside and the courts are receiving a better service.

  The combined effect of those prison and escort contracts already let will be cost savings of £18 million a year for the taxpayer.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of prisoners with 24-hours access to sanitation excluding new and renovated accommodation for each of the past 12 months in prisons in England and Wales. [16265]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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 for Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 29 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about access to sanitation in prisons in England and Wales.
  668
  In the 12 months up to the end of Februry of this year 24 hour access to sanitation was provided for an additional 2202 prison cells, excluding new and renovated accommodation. The following table shows the month by month breakdown.

  Month

  Additional cells (excluding new and renovated)

  Percentage of prisoners with access

  March 1994

  388

  91

  April 1994

  38

  91

  May 1994

  128

  91

  June 1994

  151

  92

  July 1994

  292

  92

  August 1994

  247

  92

  September 1994

  319

  93

  October 1994

  163

  94

  November 1994

  82

  94

  December 1994

  297

  95

  January 1995

  30

  95

  February 1995

  67

  95

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of prisoners who are held two or three to a cell in units of accommodation which are certified as being suitable for only one person for each of the past 12 months in prisons in England and Wales. [16230]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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 Mr. George Howarth, dated 29 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners who are held two or three to a cell in units of accommodation which are certified as being suitable for only one person for each of the past 12 months in prisons in England and Wales.
  The information is given in the attached table.

  Two prisoners sharing a cell designed for one

  Three prisoners sharing a cell designed for one

  1994

  March

  8,488

  24

  April

  8,406

  0

  May

  8,106

  0

  June

  8,434

  0

  July

  8,618

  0

  August

  8,662

  0

  September

  8,728

  0

  October

  8,600

  0

  November

  8,480

  0

  December

  7,754

  0

  1995

  January

  7,998

  0

  February

  8,592

  0

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the prisons in which operational capacity on at least one wing has been exceeded during the last 12 months and in each of the previous five years; [15942]
  669
  (2) under what circumstances a prison governor has authority to exceed the operational capacity of a prison wing. [15943]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for these matters 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 Mr. Jon Owen Jones, dated 29 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about prisons in which the operational capacity on at least one wing has been exceeded during the last 12 months and in each of the previous 5 years; and the circumstances in which a prison governor has authority to exceed the operational capacity of a prison wing.
  Operation capacity is the total number of prisoners which an establishment can hold without serious risk to good order, security and the proper running of the planned regime. Operational capacities are set for an establishment, rather than for individual wings, by area managers based on their operational judgement. The information you request is therefore not available.
  Governors may, with the agreement of area managers, accept prisoners in excess of operational capacity if there are compelling operational reasons for doing so. But every effort is made to avoid this by maximising the use of all available accommodation and allocation and transfers to other establishments.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) women and (b) men are employed at each grade within the Prison Service, and what have been their responsibilities for every year since 1989, broken down by category and type of prison. [14861]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 29 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question requesting information about the numbers and responsibilities of men and women employed in the Prison Service for each year since 1989.
  The attached tables are based on information held in the personnel information computer system. This information varies slightly from the figures used in response to an earlier Question (House of Commons Hansard 24 January 1995, Vol 253, Number 36 Column 43–44) because of the differing source of information. The information contained in the tables was used as it provides a breakdown, by grade and sex, of all staff employed by the Service for each year since 1989, whose details were on the system at the relevant times. The totals for officers for 1 April 1990 and 1 April 1992 are slightly lower than those given in my reply to Mr Redmond on 23 January and slightly higher for 1 April 1993. As information for April"September 1991 is unavailable, the figures for October have been, provided.
  A breakdown of the information in the tables by category and type of establishment is not available for 1989–94 and could be obtained for 1995 only at disproportionate cost. Copies of these tables will be placed in the Library of the House.
  The responsibilities of staff are determined by their grade and by the structure and work of the establishment or unit concerned, it is not possible to provide meaningful overall categorisations of responsibility by grade.
  670
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what changes there have been in policy on searching in(a) women's gaols and (b) men's gaols between 1990 and 1994.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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 Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 29 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about changes in policy on searching in male establishments and female establishments between 1990 and 1994.
  The policy changes are listed below.

  For male establishments
  October 1992—Policy changed to allow women officers to "rub-down" search male prisoners. (This did not extend to intimate or strip-searching.) The change in policy was to ensure that women could carry out the majority of duties expected of male officers and so would not be debarred in practice from working in male establishments, so effectively limiting their career options as the great majority of establishments hold male prisoners.

  For all establishments
  January 1993—Amendment to Prison Service Manual on Security which allowed instructions to be given to a prisoner during a strip search to bend over/spread legs, if they were suspected of concealing a weapon in the anal or genital area.
  Searching practices were also tightened following the attempted escape from Whitemoor prison in September 1994, although these did not involve changes in policy. We are now in the process of making further changes to our searching procedures following Sir John Woodcock's inquiry into the escape from Whitemoor prison. Sir John Woodcock made a number of recommendations which will have an impact on searching. The main changes are more rigorous procedures for searching cells, introduction of dedicated search teams, and searching of staff and visitors on entry to prisons and, on a random basis, on leaving for certain categories of prison. The Home Secretary published the implementation schedule for all the recommendations contained in the report on 8 February. A copy of that schedule has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Special Constabulary
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the special constabulary in England and Wales, and if he will make a statement. [17676]

  Mr. Maclean
  We are establishing a Home Office joint working group to review the special constabulary in England and Wales and to consider what changes are needed.

  The group will include representatives of the regular police staff associations, local authorities, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, and special constables. It will be chaired by me or by a Home Office official.

  I expect the group to produce recommendations about terms and conditions of service by mid-summer and on other matters within the year.
  671
  I am placing in the Library today a copy of an open letter I am sending to all serving special constables asking them to contribute to the group's work.

  Betting
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to consult interested parties about the proposals for an all-cash amusement-with-prizes machine and changes to betting shop facilities. [17677]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As part of the Government's deregulation initiative my Department today issued a consultation paper seeking views on proposed changes to the law on gaming machines and betting shops. These include:an all-cash amusement-with-prizes machine with a maximum prize of £10 in essentially adult environment, including betting shops;
  an extension of the services betting shops may offer; to permit the sale of racing publications, society lottery tickets, prize competitions, such as spot the ball and payment of football pools winnings;
  increases in the numbers of jackpot machines permitted in casinos, bingo clubs and registered clubs.

  The all-cash machine would dispense with tokens, which are unpopular with both players and the industry. Overall, the changes would remove unnecessary restrictions on the facilities which may be offered and improve consumer choice while ensuring adequate protection for young people.

  Subject to the outcome of the consultation process, I propose to bring forward these changes by means of an order or orders under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library.

  DNA Databases
  Mr. Llywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from police authorities on the capital funding for the establishment of DNA databases; and if he will make a statement. [16785]

  Mr. Maclean
  Of the representations made to the Government by police authorities or chief officers on their grant for 1995–96, 10 have made reference, either directly or indirectly, to costs arising from police use of the DNA database. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has also made representations on behalf of the metropolitan forces.

  The costs and benefits to the police of the database have been taken fully into account in our assessment of future police spending requirements. Additional capital provision of £2.5 million is being made available to the forensic science service to launch the operational service and will be recovered over time as a component of the charge to the police for processing each sample. But costs to the police will ultimately be determined by the use they make of the service, and that will be a decision for individual chief officers on their assessment of the balance of costs and benefits.

  Interpol (Wildlife Crime)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the workings and development of the Interpol wildlife groups. [16937]

  Mr. Maclean
  The International Criminal Police Organisation—Interpol—established a working party on environmental crime in 1992. It has met twice—in September 1993 and May 1994. Its next meeting is in May 1995.

  The working party has four sub-groups, one of which is concerned with wildlife crime—illegal traffic in species of wild flora and fauna. The other sub-groups deal with illegal traffic in waste, illegal traffic in radioactive substances and the fourth co-ordinates the work of the other three.

  The sub-group on wildlife crime is developing a network of law enforcement contacts dealing with wildlife crime, promoting the exchange of information about international wildlife crime and effective enforcement methods and is working closely with the secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species on Wild Fauna and Flora—CITES. The sub-group met at the CITES secretariat in Geneva in October 1994.

  The UK national central bureau of Interpol, part of the national criminal intelligence service, contributes to the work of the Interpol sub-group on wildlife crime to improve police co-operation against international wildlife crimes. The global wildlife division of the Department of the Environment has also participated in a sub-group meeting.

  Charities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to order a public inquiry into the financial affairs of the charities Child Aid and Children in Crisis. [16236]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Charity Commissioners have the statutory oversight of charities and the function of instituting inquiries into their affairs where appropriate. I understand that the commissioners' inquiry into the affairs of the Child Aid Foundation is continuing and that the foundation's trustees are co-operating with the inquirers. The commissioners have not had reason to institute any inquiry into Children in Crisis.

  Police Authority Budgets
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the additional reductions to the budget limits of each police authority for 1995–96. [16255]

  Mr. Maclean
  The amounts of grant to police authorities were announced in the reply given to a question from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on 30 January, column 516. Funding of the police service in England and Wales will be increased by 4 per cent. in 1995–96. The setting of budgets is a matter for police authorities, subject only to the capping criteria. The capping of budgets for all classes of local authority is a matter, in England, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and in Wales for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. No changes have been made to the provisional capping criteria for 1995–96 announced in December 1994.

  Truck Crime
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what action his Department is taking to combat truck crime. [16380]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government recognise the serious effect which the loss of lorries or their loads can have on individual businesses. For this reason we are determined to do all we can to tackle this problem.

  It is important that truck owners and drivers are aware of the risks they face and take steps to prevent this type of crime. Manufacturers also have a part to play by improving the security features of commercial vehicles. Last year, the Home Office published an advice leaflet, "A Load on Your Mind", which outlines measures which owners of heavy goods vehicles can take to protect them from theft.

  Theft of and from vehicles carry stiff maximum penalties. Taking a vehicle without consent carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000. Where there is intent to deprive the owner permanently of the vehicle or its load, the offender is liable to seven years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

  The vehicle crime prevention sub-group of the National Board for Crime Prevention advises the Government on initiatives aimed at reducing theft of and from all types of motorised vehicles. The remit of the vehicle crime prevention group was extended to cover heavy goods vehicles in recognition of the fact that commercial vehicle crime is a serious problem. The group brings together key representatives in the vehicle security field and is a symbol of the Government's partnership approach to crime prevention.

  The group maintains links with other bodies working in the vehicle crime prevention field. Its chairman also chairs the Metropolitan police's joint action group on organised lorry theft which has been established to study the scale and nature of organised lorry theft and make recommendations on how to reduce it.

  Home Office researchers are currently undertaking an in-depth study into heavy commercial vehicle crime using data held on the police national computer supplemented by a postal survey of victims of lorry theft. The research is looking at the numbers and types of lorries stolen; time and location at which thefts occur; the extent of the losses involved and the level of security used to protect vehicles. The results of the study, which are due to be published in the early summer, will be used to develop well targeted initiatives aimed at reducing lorry theft.

  The police accord a high priority to tackling vehicle crime and have developed many initiatives. There have been a number of successful police operations against heavy goods vehicle crime, most recently Operation Tupps where the Metropolitan police stolen vehicle squad, in conjunction with Kent constabulary, arrested two men who ran a commercial breaker and exporter's yard in Essex.

  The Government have also given their backing to Truckwatch, an initiative to counter commercial vehicle theft which has the support of the road haulage and freight transport associations and the police. It was first launched by Norfolk constabulary at the beginning of 1994.

  Hit-and-run Accidents
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years for cases involving hit-and-run accidents; and what charges were referred in each case. [16666]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is for prosecutions for offences as defined in section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

  The number of prosecutions in England and Wales for offences of failing to stop after an accident or failing to report an accident within 24 hours for the years 1989 to 1993 are set out below. More serious charges may have been preferred in some of these cases depending on the circumstances.

  Failing to stop after accident

  Failing to report accident within 24 hours

  1989

  26,784

  23,400

  1990

  25,827

  22,642

  1991

  25,418

  22,044

  1992

  22,225

  19,738

  1993

  19,043

  15,665

  Figures for 1994 are not yet available.

HEALTH

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average length of time for each GP consultation; and what this was for each of the last 10 years. [15369]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested has not been routinely collected every year. The information is available for 1985–86, 1989–90 and 1992–93 from surveys of general practitioners work load and is as follows:

  Average time spent per consultation by GMPs by type of activity

  Time (minutes)

  Activity

  1985–86

  1989–90

  1992–93

  Surgery1

  8.2

  8.8

  8.8

  Home visits (including travel time)

  24.4

  25.5

  25.2

  Home visits (time in home)

  13.1

  13.5

  13.2

  Clinics

  11.0

  12.0

  12.6

  Notes

  1. To aid comparison, the 1992–93 figure for "surgery" 1includes the time spent on "telephone consultations"; these were included within "surgery" in the 1985–86 and 1989–90 Surveys.

  Sources:

  General Medical Practitioners' Workload 1985–86 [ISBN 1 85197 068 1].

  General Medical Practitioner's Workload Survey 1989–90 [ISBN 1 85197 561 6].

  General Medical Practitioners' Workload Survey 1992–93 Joint evidence to the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body from the Health Departments and the GMSC, November 1994.

  Copies of these documents are available in the Library.
  675
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of general practitioners and the number of secretaries, administrators, receptionists and practice managers in general practice in each of the last six years(a) in total, (b) by family health service authority and (c) broken down between fundholding and non-fundholding practices. [16166]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested will be placed in the Library. The data collected do not distinguish between fundholding and non-fundholding general practitioners.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by region(a) the amount and (b) the proportion of each trust's income derived from general practitioner fundholders' contracts. [15830]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if she will list those services which fundholding general practitioners can currently purchase; to which services she proposes to extend this list; and what plans she has to reduce the number of patients needed for a GP to become a fundholder. [16667]

  Mr. Malone
  The approved list of goods and services details those goods and services which a fundholding general practitioner may purchase. Both the current list and the revised list, which will be effective from 1 April 1996, are available in the Library. As announced in EL (94)79, it is proposed that from 1 April 1996 general practitioners with a list size of 5,000 or more

  1985–89

  1990–94

  Retirements due to age

  Early retirements due to ill-health

  Retirements due to age

  Early retirements due to ill-health

  Early retirement scheme

  General Medical Practitioners

  3,950

  554

  3,458

  746

  —

  General Dental Practitioners

  1,165

  366

  1,085

  381

  526

  Note:

  The Early Retirement Scheme was restricted to general dental practitioners and came into effect from April 1991. The aim is to improve efficiency by allowing older dentists to retire early in favour of younger dentists.

  Figures in respect of consultants from 1988

  Consultants

  Retirements due to age

  Early retirements due to ill-health

  Early retirement programme to allow for replacement of senior posts

  Other early retirements

  1988–89

  383

  38

  29

  58

  1989–90

  359

  39

  75

  52

  1990–91

  376

  46

  45

  77

  1991–92

  368

  56

  38

  92

  1992–93

  369

  56

  35

  111

  1993–94

  380

  45

  66

  157

  1994–95

  418

  47

  59

  159

  Note:

  The Early Retirement programme is open to all consultants aged 50 or over. Consultants include Senior Hospital Medical and Dental Officers who worked full or part-time.

  Vacant Medical Posts
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of all(a) house
  676
  patients may enter standard fundholding and those with over 3,000 patients may enter community fundholding.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a definition reply to his letter of 1 December 1994, Ref. POH2 4593/41. [14414]

  Mr. Malone
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 24 March.

  Retirement
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general practitioners, (b) consultants and (c) other hospital doctors have retired in each year for the last 10 years; and how many of these have (i) taken early retirement, (ii) retired before 60 and (iii) retired before 55. [15773]

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the National Health Service Pensions Agency under its chief executive, A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. Nicholas Brown, dated 29 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as it falls within my area of responsibility.
  A breakdown of the figures in the format requested is not available. We are however able to provide the following information.
  Figures in respect of General and Medical Practitioners quinquennially:

  officer, (b) senior house officer, (c) registrar, (d) senior registrar and (e) consultant posts remained vacant as at 1 April on each of the last 10 years for each regional health authority. [15772]

  Mr. Malone
  Data as at 1 April are not available. Information on vacancies for consultants, senior registrars, registrars and senior house officers is collected from the national health service each year, and is available in the Library in Crown copyright table R5 of the Department's census of the medical and dental work force. As these relate to a single date they may not fairly reflect the trend for the number of vacancies in the stated grades over the year as a whole.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average annual cost of employing(a) a hospital consultant, (b) a senior house officer, (c) a qualified nurse and (d) an ambulance paramedic. [15827]
  677
  Mr. Malone
  In 1992–93, the latest year for which data are available, the average annual cost of employing a hospital consultant was £63,000 and a senior house officer was £34,410. Information for 1992–93 cannot be broken down to show the average costs of a qualified nurse and an ambulance paramedic.

  Asset Disposal
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the value of NHS assets which have been(a) sold or (b) privatised since 1985. [16186]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available on receipts from the sale of surplus hospital and community health services capital assets since 1985–86 is shown in the table. These receipts are retained by the national health service and additional to Government spending on capital.

  There is no question of these NHS assets having been privatised.

  Year

  Capital receipts (£ million)

  1985–86

  76

  1986–87

  149

  1987–88

  201

  1988–89

  280

  1989–90

  232

  1990–91

  178

  1991–92

  169

  1992–93

  113

  1993–94

  213

  1994–951

  165

  1Forecast outturn

  Endocrine System (Chemical Disruption)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has evaluated in the last 10 years on the effects on the human endocrine system of known endocrine disruptive chemicals present in the environment; [15936]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has for many years evaluated worldwide experimental and epidemiological evidence about the potential health effects of chemicals present in the environment, including their effects on the human endocrine system. We are advised on such evidence by independent expert advisory committees.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research her Department has carried out in the last 10 years into the effects on the human endocrine system of known endocrine disruptive chemicals present in the environment. [15955]

  (2) what research her Department has carried out in the last 10 years into the effects on human health of organochlorines as a class with regard to both lethal and sub-lethal effects. [15954]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The MRC is an independent body deciding what research to support on its own expert judgment.

  Birth Abnormalities
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department monitors the rates of abnormalities of the genital tract in male babies on a continual basis; and if she will make available the most recent statistics. [15957]

  Mr. Sackville
  Since 1964, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has run the national congenital malformation notification scheme. The data for this scheme are received on a voluntary basis from district health authorities. Until 31 December 1994, data were requested for all babies where the malformation was identified at or within 10 days of birth. This time limit has since been removed. Data are routinely collected on hypospadias1 and epispadias—the most commonly visible malformations of the male genital tract. The most recent statistics are shown in the table.

  Notification of male babies born with hypospadias1 and epispadias in England and Wales, 1992 and 1993
  Rates per 10,000 male live and still births

  Year

  Number

  Rate

  1992

  532

  15.0

  1993

  533

  15.3

  1 Excludes hypospadias when the meatus lies before the coronary sulcus.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing total Government expenditure on the NHS in each year since 1985. [16188]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Year

  Government expenditure on the national health service—England (£ million)

  1985–86

  14,176

  1986–87

  15,173

  1987–88

  16,668

  1988–89

  18,413

  1989–90

  19,855

  1990–91

  22,328

  1991–92

  25,356

  1992–93

  27,973

  1993–94

  28,953

  1994–951

  30,706

  1Estimated outturn

  Accident and Emergency Department Closures
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments have had to be closed for reasons other than a planned closure in each of the last 10 years; and if she will list the name of the unit, the date and length of the unplanned closure and the reason why it was closed. [16093]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Dementia
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken, following the introduction of the care programme approach and services for older people with
  679
  dementia, to increase the number of clinical psychologists available to the NHS; and what steps she is taking to ensure that mechanisms exist to effectively link vacancy figures with training commissions. [16173]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for local employers to determine the staff needed to deliver the services that they have contracted to provide. Since 1991, the number of clinical psychologists employed by the national health service trusts and the number of training places commissioned on their behalf by regional health authorities has continued to increase to meet the growing demand for clinical psychologists. The number of clinical psychologists has risen from 2,100 in 1990 to 2,810 in 1993 which represents an increase of 34 per cent.

  Board Members (Hours of Work)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to(a) advise the Audit Commission of the number of hours that chairmen and non-executive directors of health authorities and NHS trusts are expected to devote to their duties for their salaries and (b) to report on those who significantly fail to honour their commitments. [16217]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines her Department has issued to its agencies and other public bodies under its authority in respect of the employment of public relations companies and the procedures to be adopted in relation to requesting tenders for public relations companies. [16215]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has not issued guidelines to agencies and public bodies under its authority specifically for the employment of public relations companies. However, the requests for tenders for these and other services are handled in accordance with general purchasing guidance issued by the Department.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much her Department spent on public relations during the financial year 1993–94; how much contracts with the private sector cost; and if she will list the activities covered by these contracts. [16282]

  Mr. Sackville
  Functions which are identified as public relations are normally carried out within the Department by the press and publicity branches of the information division.

  Cornwall Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 1 December 1994,Official Report, column 830, if she is now in a position to make a statement on the payment of defence costs in the Cornwall Health trust libel case involving an earlier chairman. [16206]

  Mr. Malone
  No. The matter remains before the courts.

  Body Scanner, Greenwich
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the South East Thames regional health authority purchased the second-hand body scanner for Greenwich health authority. [16242]

  Mr. Sackville
  The scanner was supplied by American Medical Ltd.

  Trainee Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trainee nurses there were in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994. [16238]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 30 November 1994, column 794 for the 1992 figures. Information shown in the table for 1993 and 1994 is taken from the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting annual reports for 1993 and 1994, copies of which are available in the Library.

  In training population nurses and midwives—England Years ended 31 March 1992 and 31 March 1994

  1993

  1994

  Pre-registration

  53,085

  54,898

  Post-registration

  3,718

  3,038

  Total pre- and post-registration

  56,803

  57,936

  Source:

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Long-stay Care of the Elderly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to health authorities on the number of beds per 1,000 population aged over 65 years to be provided for the long-stay medical and nursing care of the elderly. [16244]

  Mr. Bowis
  HSG(95)8, issued on 23 February to health authorities, made clear the national health service's responsibility for purchasing a full range of services to meet continuing health care needs. Copies are in the Library.

  Pensioners (Mailshot)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will order the Paymaster General's Office to remove NHS pensioners' personal pension account numbers from labels used in any future departmental mailshot and from any envelope addressed to NHS pensioners. [16275]

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its chief executive A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 29 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Health has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as it falls within my area of responsibility.

  681
  Keith Sullens, Chief Executive of Paymaster who the NHS Pensions Agency contracts to pay our NHS pensioners informed me that account numbers which appeared on envelopes addressed to NHS pensioners were printed in error. A new system has been introduced which will ensure NHS pensioners personal pension account numbers do not appear on any envelopes addressed to NHS pensioners in the future.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what fees the Paymaster General's office charged Medicash for the recent mailshot to NHS pensioners.
  [16249]

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its chief executive, A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 29 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Health has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question as it falls within my areas of responsibility.
  I understand that Paymaster whom the NHS Pensions Agency contracts to pay NHS pensioners charged Medicash £21,379.21 (including VAT) for the recent mailshot to NHS pensioners.

  Surrey Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will inquire into and publish details of the terms on which Lynn Samuel and Mike Foy left the Surrey ambulance trust and the cost to the NHS. [16254]

  Mr. Sackville
  The terms on which Mr. Lynn Samuel left Surrey Ambulance Service National Health Service trust are a matter for the trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Lady Helen Gardiner, for details.

  The arrangements for Mr. Mike Foy, the former chief ambulance officer and then general manager of Surrey Ambulance Service, are a matter for the East Surrey health authority, which managed the service before it became a trust on 1 April 1994. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority, Mr. John Poole, for details.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will advise health authorities only to employ in part-time posts dental contractors who have a substantial number of national health patients. [16389]

  Mr. Malone
  Family health services authorities are given approval to employ salaried dentists, whether full or part-time only when they can demonstrate that patients in a particular area would otherwise have difficulty obtaining general dental services.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press officers there are in her Department currently; and what was the figure in 1979. [16561]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of press officers currently employed is 15. Figures for 1979 are not available.

  Clinical Negligence Fund
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she proposes to take following the issue in 1994 of a consultation document on the 682
  proposed creation of a central fund for clinical negligence costs in the NHS. [17358]

  Mr. Malone
  Last year, the Department of Health published outline proposals for a central fund to help national health service trusts spread the costs of clinical negligence. The response to the proposals, both from the NHS and other interested parties, was very positive. Detailed design work on the scheme has been carried out for the Department by a team from the Medical Protection Society and Willis Corroon Ltd. in full consultation with the trust movement.

  In the light of the continued high degree of interest shown by NHS trusts, I have decided that—subject to parliamentary authority—the scheme should go ahead with effect from 1 April 1995. The scheme will be voluntary. The necessary regulations to set up the scheme, and the special health authority which will administer it on behalf of the Secretary of State, will be laid in the near future.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people claimed free prescriptions on grounds of(a) automatic entitlement and (b) low-income entitlement as outlined in the Department of Health form P11, during the last year for which figures are available. [16929]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she has received concerning the disease myalgic encephalomyelitis; and if she will make a statement on her proposals for improving(a) the treatment, (b) medical and public knowledge and (c) research of the disease. [16813]

  Mr. Sackville
  The national task force on chronic fatigue syndrome, post viral fatigue syndrome or ME, which is independent of the Department of Health, has produced a report. With a view to securing progress and promoting the development of a professional consensus, the chief medical officer has invited the conference of colleges to consider the report. The views of the conference of colleges will be of much assistance to the Department in helping to determine the best way forward on matters concerning this condition.

  NHS Trusts (Borrowing)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each NHS trust has paid for the cost of borrowing in each year since its inception.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: This information will be placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines his Department has issued to its agencies and other public bodies under its authority in respect of the employment of public relations companies and the procedures to be adopted in relation to requesting
  683
  tenders for public relations companies. [16214]

  Mr. Hague
  Guidance on the use of public relations companies is issued by the Cabinet Office and is contained in the booklet, "A Work Guide for Government Information Officers", a copy of which is in the Library. All business units in this Department are expected to work within the Cabinet Office guidelines.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of producing and circulating the last departmental annual report; what was the circulation list; how many copies were produced; how many copies were sold; and at what price. [16622]

  Mr. Hague
  The total cost of producing the 1995–96 departmental annual report was £34,104.

  Copies were circulated to all personnel at grade 7 and above in the Department and executive agencies, members of the Social Security Select Committee, members of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, members of the Social Security Advisory Committee and all Opposition spokesman on social security. A copy has also been placed in the Library.

  A total of 3,500 copies were produced, 1,700 of which were designated for sale through Her Majesty's Stationery Office bookshops at a cover price of £16.35.

  Appeals
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the speed with which(a) reviews and (b) appeals involving benefit cases are dealt with by his Department; and if he will make a statement; [16496]

  (2) what discussions he has had with regard to appeals and reviews affecting cases inside his Department during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement; [16498]

  (3) what representations he has received in the last 12 months regarding delays in dealing with appeals and reviews affecting cases involving his Department; and if he will make a statement. [16497]

  Mr. Hague
  The table shows average clearance times for:

  (a) the three types of benefit cases which are subject to mandatory review prior to appeal; and

  (b) benefit appeals, divided by type of tribunal.

  We have received representations from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Social Security Advisory Committee about delays and also letters concerning individual cases. Ministers have regular meetings with His Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte, the president of the Independent Tribunal Service, which hears social security benefit appeals, and with the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, who is responsible for ensuring that targets on reviews and appeals preparation are met.
  684

  Benefit reviews and appeals

  Number

  Reviews

  Disability living allowance

  81 per cent. in 55 days

  Disability working allowance

  91 per cent. in 20 days

  Attendance allowance

  92 per cent. in 75 days

  Appeals1

  Social security appeal tribunal

  244 weeks

  Disability appeal tribunal

  23 weeks

  Medical appeal tribunal

  36 weeks

  1Figures include the time taken by the Independent Tribunal Service to hear appeals.

  2This time is higher than usual because the Independent Tribunal Service are clearing appeals which were previously held up awaiting the outcome of a Court of Appeal case. The underlying clearance time is around 28 weeks.

  War Disablement Pension
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants there have been in the last five years for a war disablement pension under the personal injuries (civilians) scheme for tuberculosis sufferers; and how many of these applications have been successfully granted a pension. [166681]

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

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many press officers there are in his Department currently; and what the figure was in 1979. [16565]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of press officers currently employed by this Department is as follows:

  Number

  The Department's headquarters in London

  10

  Seconded HQ press officer to the charity Motability (includes publicity and promotions work)

  1

  The Child Support Agency

  2

  The Contributions Agency

  1

  The War Pensions Agency

  0.25

  The Benefits Agency

  National press office

  8

  Regional press offices

  9

  Information Technology Services Agency

  0.6

  This Department was not in existence until 1988 and figures for 1979 are therefore not available.

  Benefits Agency Review
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the outcome of the review of the Benefits Agency. [17601]

  Mr. Lilley
  I announced on 20 July 1994,Official Report, column 257, a formal review of the Benefits Agency. Each next steps agency undergoes a periodic review to evaluate performance, to reconsider whether agency status is the best way of doing the job and to revise its framework document.
  685
  Part of that review involved an evaluation of the performance of the Benefits Agency since its creation in April 1991. I am pleased to announce that the evaluation report has been published today and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  My colleagues and I have now considered the review team's recommendations. These take account of a number of detailed submissions from hon. Members, national and local customer representative organisations, and private companies. I am grateful to all those who have participated in the review.

  The main conclusions of the review, which I accept, are that the Benefits Agency should remain a next steps agency within the civil service, responsible as now for a wide range of social security benefits. There is no scope to abolish or privatise an organisation of this nature; nor is there any evidence to suggest that wholesale contractorisation of the agency's functions is at present feasible or likely to improve value for money for the taxpayer. The review endorses the agency's initiatives to integrate its services more closely in order to provide a "one stop" customer service and to reduce significantly the scope for fraud and abuse.

  The review also recommends that the agency should build on its existing change programme by developing a comprehensive strategy for improving its performance and efficiency. The details will be for the chief executive to decide, but they will include the involvement of the private sector wherever its skills would be of assistance, for example through re-engineering of the agency's business processes. The Government's "Competing for Quality" programme will continue to apply to the majority of the agency's support functions. In addition, and in order to inform the debate about longer-term possibilities, I have asked the chief executive to conduct a pilot project to establish the feasibility and desirability of separating the adjudication function from other parts of the benefits administration process.

  The review goes on to recommend that the chief executive conduct internal reviews of the agency's structure and organisation, including the relationship between the corporate centre and the local units, and the numbers and boundaries of those units. This will devolve more power to local units to respond to local needs whilst at the same time sharpening accountability. All the elements of the strategy should have been decided by April 1996 to enable implementation of any changes from April 1997.

  In conclusion, the review recognises the significant improvements in customer service and efficiency which the agency has achieved since its inception in 1991. These reflect great efforts by the chief executive and his staff. The review's recommendations are designed to build on this work. I am placing a copy of the executive summary of the prior options report in the Library today, and I shall shortly publish a revised framework document confirming the agency's aims, objectives and responsibilities.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 20 March,Official Report, column 64, how long he estimates it will take for absent parents to benefit from reduction in maintenance as a result of the introduction of travel cost allowances in the CSA formula. [15864]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Andrew Miller, dated 29 March 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about travel to work costs in the child support formula.
  Subject to the approval of the regulations by Parliament, travel to work costs will be taken into account in the maintenance formula from 18 April 1995.
  Applications for travel to work costs will be incorporated into appropriate assessments as they are made from that date.
  Existing clients will be sent a leaflet explaining the change. This will include a tear-off portion inviting them to make a claim within three months. The Agency will start processing these claims as soon as they are received.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff are currently employed in the prevention of benefit fraud; and what was the financial benefit of such work in the last financial year for which figures are available. [16823]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The administration of fraud work 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. Greg Pope, dated 28 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the numbers of staff currently employed in the prevention of benefit fraud; and the financial benefit of this work in the last financial year.
  The Benefits Agency currently employs over 3,000 staff in fraud work where duties include both prevention and detection. Separate figures are not kept on the work of staff where work is related to the prevention of fraud, nor on the financial value of preventative work. The total estimated benefit savings for the financial year 1993/94 from fraud work was £654m. Recoveries of benefit overpaid, including fraud cases, totalled £80m for the same period.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

EDUCATION

  Education Expenditure
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent in total on state schools in Bedfordshire in each of the last 20 years at constant prices. [16928]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows total expenditure by Bedfordshire local education authority on its maintained schools from 1974–75 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available. The table does not include information on grant-maintained schools.
  687

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Gross expenditure Nur/pri/sec/spl (1994–95 prices)£000

  1974–75

  168,728

  1975–76

  175,013

  1976–77

  184,289

  1977–78

  n/a

  1978–79

  176,510

  1979–80

  172,568

  1980–81

  176,925

  1981–82

  176,983

  1982–83

  167,550

  1983–84

  166,307

  1984–85

  165,402

  1985–86

  165,871

  1986–87

  169,281

  1987–88

  181,932

  1988–89

  185,859

  1989–90

  186,259

  1990–91

  181,145

  1991–92

  190,796

  1992–93

  219,064

  1993–941

  182,297

  1 Provisional.

  Teachers" Pay
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the outcome of consultation on her proposal to accept the pay settlement for school teachers which was recommended by the School Teachers Review Body. [17481]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am today confirming that I am accepting the School Teachers Review Body's recommendation to increase school teachers' pay by 2.7 per cent. I will make an order which will increase all points on the teachers' pay spines by 2.7 per cent. with effect from 1 April.

  I am writing to the teacher unions, the National Employers Organisation for School Teachers, bodies representing school governors and to the head teachers and chairmen of governors of all schools in England and Wales. Teachers are making the key contribution to raising standards in education. They deserve their pay award, at the level recommended by the independent School Teachers Review Body, without undue delay.

  I have received many representations about the funding of the teachers' pay award and considered them carefully. I believe the local government funding settlement is tough but manageable, and I have concluded that it would be right to implement the recommendation in full. It is for local authorities to give priority to front-line services such as schools. School governors in turn should ensure the efficient management of staff and resources.

  I can also confirm my decisions to bring into force from 1 September 1995 the following proposals by means of revisions to the school teachers pay and conditions document:

  i. relevant bodies should be able, at their discretion, to reward teachers for work on initial teacher training;

  ii. relevant bodies should be able, at their discretion, to compensate teachers for in-service training at weekends and in school holidays, the compensation to be paid from savings on supply cover that would otherwise be necessary were the in-service training to be undertaken during the school day;

  688

  iii. the STPCD should recognise the employment status of teachers in Education Associations and GM clusters.

  I can also confirm my decisions to accept the following conclusions and recommendations of the School Teachers Review Body, not all of which will require changes to be made to the STPD:

  i. there should be no change to the structure of the classroom teachers' pay spine, but the STRB will produce a consultative document on this subject;

  ii. the current transitional arrangements for safeguarding the inner London Supplement should remain in place;

  iii. returners to the profession should retain their entitlement to their accumulated experience points;

  iv. there should be no change in the employment status of teachers at Pupil Referral Units. Such teachers will continue to be "unattached";

  v. there should be no separate performance related pay scheme for heads and deputies, but the Secretary of State should issue guidance on the assessment of performance, drawing on the four essential performance indicators set out in the STRB's consultative document, which should be taken into account by relevant bodies when reviewing salaries for these staff;

  vi. there should be no direct funding of excellence points through GEST, but the Department should consider other direct funding mechanisms; and

  vii. the Teachers' Pension Agency should distribute copies of a poster and a leaflet about the benefits of the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what funding is obtained from the European social fund for courses in British universities. [16892]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 1993, £40.35 million was claimed for European social fund provision across objectives 2, 3, 4 and 5b by the higher education sector, which includes universities, in Great Britain. Final figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines she is giving to universities and other higher education institutes on how to deal with mature students who receive training allowances from the European social fund. [16840]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  Each year, the Department issues comprehensive guidance to all potential applicants, including universities and other higher education institutes, on how to apply for, and claim European social fund grants. This guidance covers how the allowances to students and other trainees are to be treated.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students benefit from the European social fund provision entitling them to pursue courses in United Kingdom universities. [16893]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 1993, 50,309 students in Great Britain benefited from European social fund provision across objectives 2, 3, 4 and 5b in the higher education sector, which includes universities. Final figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  National Science Week
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost to the university sector of the National Science Week promotion. [16897]
  689
  Mr. Boswell
  The requested information is not held centrally.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what was the total cost of cash protection of the central element of grant-maintained schools' budgets in England and Wales in 1994–95, listed by local education authority; and what will be the costs in 1995–96, based on the local education authority provisional estimates submitted by 31 March; [16935]

  (2) which grant-maintained schools, listed by local education authority, will receive more cash protection within central AMG in 1995–96 than in 1994–95, based on provisional estimates; [16891]

  (3) which grant-maintained schools, in each local education authority area, will receive, on provisional estimates, an element for cash protection within their annual maintenance grant for 1995–96, when no element was received in 1994–95. [16986]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Responsibility for the calculation of grants for grant-maintained schools is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked its chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Teachers Pensions Agency
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many former teachers' pensions are covered by the privatisation review which is currently taking place at the Teachers Pensions Agency. [16981]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have made it clear that there is no question of privatising the teachers' superannuation scheme. The present review is concerned solely with the administration of the scheme.

  Some 250,000 former teachers have preserved rights in the scheme. Some 340,000 retired teachers are receiving pension payments.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether, as part of the privatisation review of the Teachers Pensions Agency, she is considering allowing private firms to charge teachers' employers directly for the provision of administrative services. [16982]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for any such arrangement.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total numbers in Derbyshire schools over the last 20 years in the(a) 11 to 16 years, (b) 16 to 19 years and (c) five to 11 years age range. [16714]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on pupils in Derbyshire local education authority area for years 1975–1994 is shown in the table.
  690

  Pupils by age in maintained schools1 in Derbyshire Local Education Authority area: 1975–1994 Position in January each year Ages at previous 31 August

  Pupils aged

  5–10

  11–15

  16–19+

  1975

  85,400

  67,200

  4,300

  1976

  86,100

  67,770

  4,300

  1977

  85,600

  69,500

  4,400

  1978

  84,300

  70,800

  4,300

  1979

  82,000

  71,600

  4,300

  1980

  79,300

  72,000

  4,300

  1981

  76,200

  72,000

  4,600

  1982

  72,800

  71,200

  5,100

  1983

  68,500

  70,800

  5,200

  1984

  65,200

  69,300

  5,100

  1985

  64,100

  67,300

  4,900

  1986

  63,900

  64,500

  4,700

  1987

  64,100

  61,900

  4,400

  1988

  64,600

  58,100

  4,440

  1989

  65,900

  54,900

  4,900

  1990

  66,700

  52,500

  4,700

  1991

  66,900

  51,900

  4,600

  1992

  66,700

  52,200

  4,900

  1993

  67,100

  52,700

  5,200

  1994

  68,300

  53,400

  5,000

  1 Excludes Sixth Form Colleges which ceased to be classified as schools from 1 April 1993.

  School Meals
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent by Derbyshire county council local education authority on subsidising school meals in each of the last 12 years. [16866]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally in the form requested. The table shows Derbyshire local education authority's total expenditure on, and income from, its school catering service from 1982–83 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available.

  Derbyshire local education authority

  £000

  School catering service total expenditure (cash terms)

  School catering service total income (cash terms)

  1982–83

  15,117

  5,674

  1983–84

  16,084

  6,055

  1984–85

  16,799

  5,728

  1985–86

  16,641

  5,457

  1986–87

  18,974

  6,542

  1987–88

  21,617

  7,092

  1988–89

  23,305

  7,546

  1989–90

  22,477

  7,413

  1990–91

  22,872

  7,560

  1991–92

  26,921

  8,226

  1992–93

  28,192

  9,873

  1993–941

  22,959

  9,051

  1 Provisional.

  University Evaluation System
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to change the English and Welsh university evaluation system for teaching to take them closer to the system operated for Scottish universities. [16890]
  691
  Mr. Boswell
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England is responsible for quality assessment in England. Following consultation with the sector, the council has announced a revised methodology from April 1995 which contains some elements in common with the system operated in Scotland. Responsibility for the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 16 February, Official Report, column 784, when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley may expect to receive a reply from the chairman of the Funding Agency for Schools. [16652]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I understand that the chief executive of the funding agency wrote to the hon. Member on 27 March.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Gaza
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals are being put forward by the World bank, European Union and British Government to help improve reproductive health services in Gaza and on the west bank. [16606]

  Mr. Baldry
  We are not aware of any proposals being put forward by the World bank or the European Union. We have agreed to contribute £400,000 for the UN Relief and Works Agency's expanded family health programme in the Gaza strip which aims to help improve reproductive health.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what gaps exist in the food pipeline to camps holding refugees from Rwanda; and what measures are proposed to fill any such gaps. [16598]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have pledged 21,000 tonnes of cereals and 2,800 tonnes of beans, with a total value £7 million, to the world food programme for its operations in and around Rwanda, in the last month. From this pledge, 8,500 tonnes of maize have already been bought for delivery in May; the beans will be bought locally and quickly.

  Taking account of this and other donors' pledges, WFP calculations suggest the pipeline for cereals is reasonably healthy until September, apart from some possible, short-term problems in April, which they are currently considering how to tackle. Additional pledges for non-cereal commodities are needed.

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the international community to establish an effective and objective judicial system in Burundi. [16603]

  Mr. Baldry
  A UN Security Council mission to Burundi last month reiterated the importance of strengthening the national judicial system. A number of 692
  donors have expressed interest, including the European Union. Belgium plans an appraisal mission in April which others may join but the situation in Burundi is extremely fragile and plans to support the judicial system are very difficult to advance. We have contributed £100,000 this month to a UN High Commission for Human Rights programme of training and technical assistance for Burundis in justice and human rights.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the World bank, IMF and donor countries to assist Burundi to stabilise and achieve economic development. [16605]

  Mr. Baldry
  The fragile political and security environment in Burundi is making progress with economic development very difficult. The World bank agreed an emergency assistance project last December, worth nearly £10 million, for the import of high-priority goods for education, health, agriculture, infrastructure and private sector development. IMF staff hope to restart discussions with Burundi officials in Geneva this week leading to the formulation of a three-year economic policy framework for IMF assistance. An EU troika mission left for Burundi on 23 March and will present recommendations for strengthening EU support.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects on which the United Kingdom's aid contribution to Iraq has been spent since 1991. [16632]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: A list providing details of United Kingdom emergency aid contributions totalling £57.2 million since 1991 has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Most of this aid went to Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, and refugees in neighbouring countries. Smaller amounts have been used for medical supplies and water projects in central and southern Iraq. In addition, our share of EC spending has totalled £13.3 million over the same period.

  Aid Strategies
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is now available under the Overseas Development Administration's published policy on open government on aid strategies for the United Kingdom's main bilateral aid programmes. [17678]

  Mr. Baldry
  Country aid programme statements on the United Kingdom's bilateral programmes to Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Russia are now available from the ODA library.

  Further CAPS will be added to this list as and when the relevant country programmes are reviewed—those over £10 million per year; this process is carried out every other year.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations led to the making of low flying passes by a Royal Navy Westland helicopter over Goodison Boulevard, Cantley, Doncaster around 14.20 hours on 3 March. [16237]

  Mr. Soames
  Extensive enquiries have been made, but it has not proved possible to identify the helicopter in question from the details given.

  Old Sarum Airfield
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who holds the lease of Old Sarum airfield; when the lease was granted and for how long; and whether the terms of the lease permit the cessation of flying activity and the development of the airfield for housing and industrial use. [16855]

  Mr. Soames
  The lease of Old Sarum airfield is held by two parties, Blane Field Investments Ltd.—the major leaseholder—and Old Sarum Park Properties Ltd. The lease was granted on 16 November 1982 for 999 years and allows for the erection of new buildings with the landlord's consent.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to sell the freehold of Old Sarum airfield; and if tender documents have been prepared. [16854]

  Mr. Soames
  We intend to sell the freehold of Old Sarum airfield by public tender. Final tender documents are being prepared with a provisional tender date of 26 April.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rights are reserved for use of Old Sarum airfield by his Department; on how many occasions those rights have been exercised since a lease was granted on the property; and if he will make a statement. [16856]

  Mr. Soames
  The rights reserved for the use of Old Sarum permit my Department to use the airfield for the taking off and landing of military aircraft, including helicopters, on no more than 150 occasions per year. Information on the number of occasions when those rights have been exercised is only available for the last two financial years: in 1993–94, some 80 landings took place for which a landing fee was charged; in 1994–95 there were around 50 landings.

  Decommissioned Warships
  Mr. MacKinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1994,Official Report, column 816, to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on HMS Sirius what were the dates and total cost of the final refits undertaken for the three decommissioned warships used as targets and sunk in live firing exercises between 1990 and 1994. [16926]

  Mr. Freeman
  The last refit dates of the decommissioned warships used as targets and sunk in live firing exercises in 1990, 1991 and 1993 were, respectively: 5 September 1983 to 1 June 1984, 29 May 1985 to 17 February 1986, and 7 April 1986 to 8 December 1986. The costs of refit work undertaken before the royal dockyards passed into commercial management in April 1987 are not available.

  HMS Fort Victoria
  Mr. MacKinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will write to the hon. Member for Thurrock, as undertaken during the debate on 16 February,Official Report, column 1152, giving details of delayed delivery and commissioning times of HMS Fort Victoria and the reasons for these delays, together with the total costs and penalties paid. [17000]

  Mr. Freeman
  I shall be writing to the hon. Member very shortly.

  Vehicle Purchases
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what military purpose his Department requires to purchase 30 wheeled industrial diesel tractors, as set out in tender No. LV2B/488; what consideration has been given to leasing or hiring of such tractors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 22 March 1995]: The wheeled industrial diesel tractors are required for the general haulage of stores, materials handling activities and occasional light aircraft towing. A number of these are also protected to allow safe movement of ammunition, bombs and missiles. The provision, management and support of service transport is at present being reviewed to determine whether there is scope for greater involvement of the private sector. We intend to establish pilot leasing schemes by the end of this calendar year. Tender LV2B/488 represents the minimum order necessary to meet the requirement pending the outcome of the review. Any resultant contract will be sufficiently flexible to take account of changes in vehicle purchasing arrangements for any further requirements.

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what military purpose his Department requires to purchase various diesel 4 x 2 trucks, as set out in future purchase LV1B/983; what consideration has been given to leasing or hiring of such trucks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 22 March 1995]: The vehicles are required for the transportation of military stores and equipment. The provision, management and support of service transport is at present being reviewed to determine whether there is scope for greater involvement of the private sector. We intend to establish pilot leasing schemes by the end of this calendar year. Future purchase LV1B/983 represents the minimum order necessary to meet the requirement pending the outcome of the review.

  Horses and Ponies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) ponies and (b) horses have been owned by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [16078]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 24 March 1995]: My Department had a requirement for 517 horses in each year between 1985 and 1991; this changed to 471 in 1992, 499 in 1993 and 1994, and will reduce to 433 next month. In addition, we owned five ponies throughout this period.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many(a) ponies and (b) horses have been transported by his Department to (i) Cyprus and (ii) Germany in each of the last 10 years. [16077]
  695
  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 24 March 1995]: An average of three horses were transported to Germany each year between 1985 to 1992. Two ponies were transported to Cyprus in 1991 and one in 1994.

SCOTLAND

  Fisheries Protection
  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the fisheries for which exclusion orders under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 are(a) currently in operation and (b) currently under request; if he will make a statement on the operation of public access agreements in each of these fisheries; and whether he is conducting a review of the situation regarding public access to the boats operated by the Aberfeldy Angling Club on the Tay. [15520]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The following protection orders made under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 are currently in force:

  The Rivers Tweed and Eye Protection Order 1980.

  The Upper Spey and Associated Waters Protection Order 1982.

  The River Lunan Catchment Area Protection Order 1983.

  The River Tummel Catchment Area Protection Order 1983.

  The River Tay Catchment Area Protection Order 1986.

  The West Strathclyde Protection Order 1988.

  The River Earn Catchment Area Protection Order 1990.

  The River Don Catchment Area (Part) Protection Order 1990.

  The Loch Morar and River Morar Protection Order 1992.

  The Loch Awe and Associated Waters Protection Order 1992.

  The River Clyde Catchment Area (Part) Protection Order 1994.

  The North West Sutherland Protection Order 1994.

  Applications for protection orders for Loch Arkaig and the River Arkaig, Middle River Spey, St. John's loch in Caithness and Loch Ruthven and Loch Choire are under consideration.

  The operation of public access to fishings in each area is considered regularly by a liaison committee. My Department is liaising with the Aberfeldy Angling Club on access to its fishings but not on boat access as no boats are operated by that club.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of environmentally sensitive area grant budget for 1994–95 is still uncommitted(a) in cash and (b) as a percentage of the budget; and if he will make a statement on underspending in the environmentally sensitive areas budget for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Sufficient resources have been made available to enable eligible farmers and crofters in the designated areas to participate in the environmentally sensitive area scheme. Expenditure in 1994–95 is expected to be £1.16 million which represents almost 26 per cent. of the total provision of £4.5 million.

  The level of uptake has been lower than anticipated since additional environmentally sensitive areas were designated in 1993 and 1994, but we hope that more farmers and crofters will wish to take advantage of the scheme.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list and give the acreage of Forestry Commission woodlands(a) currently scheduled for sale in Perthshire and (b) sold over the past five years. [15521]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Forestry Commission records its land holdings by region, not by the former Scottish counties. The following Forestry Commission woodlands in Tayside region are currently for sale on the open market.

  Name of property

  Area (hectares)

  Camusericht

  304

  Dalguise (part)

  7

  Long Plantation, Crieff

  80

  Upper Glenprosen

  230

  Lists of the woodlands sold over the last five years, by region, are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what level of Government support the Forestry Commission has received in each year since 1985; [15976]

  (2) what was the level of financial remuneration received from the Forestry Commission in each year since 1985. [15980]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information is as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Grant-in-aid used by Forestry Commission (net) £ million

  Receipts from sale of Forestry Commission land payable into consolidated fund £ million

  Overall Government support (net) £ million

  1985

  54.0

  21.8

  32.2

  1986

  51.4

  17.2

  34.2

  1987

  51.2

  14.5

  36.7

  1988

  48.1

  13.1

  35.0

  1989

  53.5

  12.4

  41.1

  1990

  58.2

  12.9

  45.3

  1991

  74.3

  12.0

  62.3

  1992

  76.5

  14.9

  61.6

  1993

  97.1

  9.9

  87.2

  1994

  85.9

  17.3

  68.6

  Forestry Enterprise Framework Document
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place a copy of the Forestry Enterprise framework document in the Library; and what parliamentary scrutiny he now proposes the document will be subject to. [15994]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The framework document will be placed in the Library of the House when it is completed. Hon. Members will be able to raise it, like any other published document, in the House.

  Hunting
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will specify the areas of Forestry Commission land where the lease stipulates that(a) fox and (b) deer hunting must be allowed. [15978]

  Sir Hector Monro
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 168. how many cases of food poisoning were reported in 1994. [16296]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of 4,098 cases of food poisoning were reported in Scotland in 1994.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15571]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: My ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office and I have implemented and keep ourselves fully informed of progress on a wide range of deregulation activity undertaken by the Department.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15555]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The Scottish Office is fully committed to the deregulation initiative and operates a rolling programme of review of the regulations, forms and rules for which it has responsibility with a view to identifying scope for repeal or simplification.

  Woodland Planting
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hectares of forestry or woodland have been planted by the private sector in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [16934]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The areas planted by the private sector with grant aid from the Forestry Commission were as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Area planted (hectares)

  1985

  19,095

  1986

  23,358

  1987

  23,618

  1988

  28,675

  1989

  29,942

  1990

  21,531

  1991

  22,542

  1992

  21,978

  1993

  23,369

  1994

  24,352

  Holyroodhouse
  Mrs Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost to his Department of the 698
  maintenance and running costs of Holyroodhouse, whether occupied or unoccupied, in the last five years; and what proportion of this sum is represented by employees' salaries. [16919]

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 28 March 1995]: My right hon. Friend is responsible for the cost of the maintenance of the fabric of the palace, for security and for the costs of utilities such as fuel and telephones. All other costs are met by the royal household.

  The information for the most recent five years is:

  Programme expenditure £

  Historic Scotland employee costs £

  Total £

  1990–91

  860,833

  288,636

  1,149,469

  1991–92

  723,000

  334,346

  1,057,346

  1992–93

  696,600

  338,530

  1,035,130

  1993–94

  693,215

  337,852

  1,031,067

  1994–951

  897,700

  345,124

  1,242,824

  1Estimate

  These costs include all expenditure directly attributable to the palace, but not professional and central administration.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the draft list of areas of special conservation and protection required under the EC habitats directive will be announced; what the length of the consultation period will be; on what date the draft list is due to be submitted to the European Commission; and if the consultation process can be extended beyond that date. [16925]

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 28 March 1995]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on behalf of the UK Environment Ministers will be making a statement to the House on these matters very shortly.

  Health Board Funding
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total allocation of funding to health boards in Scotland in each of the past five years; if he will show this in constant figures taking 1989 as base year; and if he will indicate the percentage levels of increase in real terms. [16050]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table.

  Year

  Total allocation £ million

  At constant 1989 prices £ million

  Real terms increase Per cent.

  1990–91

  2,184.0

  2,021.9

  -0.5

  1991–92

  2,466.9

  2,148.9

  6.3

  1992–93

  2,621.9

  2,196.4

  2.2

  1993–94

  2,706.8

  2,200.4

  0.2

  1994–95

  2,869.9

  2,287.0

  3.9

  Body Scanners, Ayrshire
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what discussions the South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS trust had with Ayrshire and Arran health board and the North Ayrshire NHS trust prior to their agreement with Medical Support Ltd. for the provision of a magnetic resonance image scanner at the Ayr hospital, with special reference to the effect of the new facility on existing facilities; [16730]

  (2) when the South Ayrshire Hospitals trust first considered entering a contract with Ayrshire Medical Support Ltd. for the provision of a magnetic image resonancing facility at the Ayr hospital; and at what stage Ayrshire and Arran health board and the Scottish Office became involved in these discussions. [16732]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Discussions between those parties on service needs and on means of meeting these needs took place in November and December 1994. It was at the December meeting that the South Ayrshire trust representative indicated that the trust was proposing to purchase a fixed base scanner. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State was made aware of the proposal in February 1995.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland where magnetic resonance imaging facilities within the Ayrshire and Arran health board area and neighbouring health boards are based; and what is the nature of the current agreements and contracts for existing equipment. [16731]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are at present no fixed-base magnetic resonance imaging scanners in Ayrshire and Arran, Argyll and Clyde, Lanarkshire or Dumfries and Galloway. There are such fixed scanners in Glasgow and the Southern General hospital and Western infirmary and at Ross Hall and the Glasgow Nuffield hospital.

  The agreements for 1995–96 propose the increased use of the mobile magnetic resonance scanner alternating week about between Crosshouse hospital and Ayr hospital.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what control the South Ayrshire Hospitals trust has over Ayrshire Medical Support Ltd. as regards the provision of magnetic resonance imaging facilities at the Ayr hospital; if he will make a statement on the financial details of this contract, the contract's duration, the trust's liabilities under the contract; and for what reasons the South Ayrshire Hospitals trust opted for the involvement of the private sector in this facility. [16739]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS trust will, through a contract, control the quality and price of the magnetic resonance imaging service from Ayrshire Medical Support Ltd. The contract details have still to be finalised.

  The trust's potential liability is limited to the loss of building lease income amounting to £20,000 per annum. The trust would seek to mitigate this loss, should it ever arise, by securing an alternative use for the premises.

  The trust believes that the new arrangements will result in an improved service to patients.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what process was used by Ayrshire and Arran health board to evaluate the decision of the South Ayrshire Hospitals trust to conclude the recent contract 700
  with Ayrshire Medical Support Ltd. and what additional resources are being awarded to the trust to enable it to meet its obligations under its contract with Ayrshire Medical Support Ltd. [16740]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The health board contracts with the South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS trust for the provision of magnetic resonance imaging services. It is open to the trust to make its own arrangements for securing that provision, subject to the health board being satisfied that the quality and price is contained within the sum made available for the current mobile service in 1995–96.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS trust will make resources available to meet its obligations under the terms of its contract with Ayrshire Medical Support Ltd. and if he will make a statement. [16741]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The trust will meet the costs of the service from Ayrshire Medical Support Ltd. as it will any other services, from the contract income it receives from its purchasers.

  NHS (Private Sector Involvement)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which NHS trusts have approached the Scottish Office with proposals for the involvement of private sector bodies in the provision of treatment facilities within NHS hospitals. [16736]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following NHS trusts have approached the Scottish Office with proposals for the involvement of private sector bodies in the provision of treatment facilities within NHS hospitals.

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  Grampian Healthcare

  Law Hospital

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  Edinburgh Healthcare

  Western General Hospitals

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services

  South Ayrshire Hospitals

  However, there are other schemes in formative stages where trusts are yet to come to the Scottish Office with firm proposals.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance the Scottish Office has issued to Scottish health boards and NHS trusts relating to the involvement of private sector bodies in the provision of facilities for treatment within the NHS. [16737]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The NHS management executive in Scotland has issued a wide range of guidance to health boards and NHS trusts over the last two years on this topic. These circulars build on guidance provided by Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions Ayrshire and Arran health board and the Scottish Office have had with other NHS trusts and health boards in the west of Scotland in relation to the conclusion of the contract between the South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS trust and Ayrshire Medical Support Ltd. and the long-term financial implications of this agreement to these bodies' operational budgets. [16738]
  701
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Neither the Ayrshire and Arran health board nor the Scottish Office has had discussions with any other health board or NHS trust about the services offered by Ayrshire Medical Support Ltd.

  NHS Trusts (Asset Disposals)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment the Scottish Office has made of the disposal of assets by Scottish NHS trusts; and if he will make a statement indicating for each health board in Scotland the asset disposals which have occurred for each NHS trust which his Department has approved, the value of the disposal in each case, the body to which the asset was sold and the utilisation made of the capital receipt in each case. [16733]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Property disposals by NHS trusts are assessed as required in the context of the NHS management executive's national oversight of NHS estate management in Scotland. In 1994–95, no disposal has been specifically approved by the management executive.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers of approval the Scottish Office has in relation to the disposal of assets by NHS trusts; and what involvement Scottish health boards have in this process. [16734]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a reserve power to prevent the disposal of property where this would be against the interests of the NHS. This power applies only to assets valued at more than a specific threshold—currently £0.5 million—and the trust is required to notify the management executive of such planned disposals in its annual business plans.

  Total Education Expenditure

  Authorities

  1993–94 Final outturn actual £000

  1994–95 Budget estimates actual £000

  1994–95 Real terms at 1993–94 prices £000

  Actual increase Per cent.

  Real terms increase Per cent.

  Borders

  49,000

  50,181

  49,197

  2.41

  0.40

  Central

  129,577

  129,297

  126,762

  -0.22

  -2.17

  Dumfries and Galloway

  73,196

  72,996

  71,565

  -0.27

  -2.23

  Fife

  166,671

  167,369

  164,087

  0.42

  -1.55

  Grampian

  249,057

  250,572

  245,659

  0.61

  -1.36

  Highland

  115,612

  114,646

  112,398

  -0.84

  -2.78

  Lothian

  326,297

  324,327

  317,968

  -0.60

  -2.55

  Strathclyde

  1,078,254

  1,103,418

  1,081,782

  2.33

  0.33

  Tayside

  178,802

  180,690

  177,147

  1.06

  -0.93

  Regions

  2,366,466

  2,393,496

  2,346,565

  1.14

  -0.84

  Orkney

  13,438

  15,148

  14,851

  12,73

  10.51

  Shetland

  24,271

  24,478

  23,998

  0.85

  -1.12

  Western

  26,729

  27,344

  26,808

  2.30

  0.29

  Islands

  64,438

  66,970

  65,657

  3.93

  1.89

  Total

  2,430,904

  2,460,466

  2,412,222

  1.22

  -0.77

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1993–94 are final outturns, and are net current expenditure figures, including loan and leasing charges.

  2. The 1994–95 figures are budget estimates on the same basis.

  3. The 1994–95 budget figures were converted to real terms using Her Majesty's Treasury GDP deflators dated 30 November 1994.
  702
  In addition, certain types of disposal by trusts are covered by notification requirements contained in the NHS property transactions handbook issued in May 1993 by the NHS management executive. The property transactions handbook provides for the involvement of boards where they have an interest in the disposal concerned, for example if there are relevant service considerations.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance has been issued by his Department to NHS trusts and health boards in Scotland in relation to the disposal of assets by these bodies. [16735]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current guidance on NHS property disposals in Scotland is contained in the property transactions handbook, issued in May 1993 by the NHS management executive.

  Constituency Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members without prior warning to these hon. Members for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15022]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: None. My office always informs the local Member of Parliament of my forthcoming visit to their constituency once arrangements have been finalised.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much is currently spent on education in each local education authority; and to what extent this has changed in relation to last year's figures in(a) real and (b) percentage terms. [16790]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information is set out in the table. The comparable information for 1995–96 is not yet available.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

NHS Trusts: Refusal of Treatment
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have issued guidelines to the newly formed national health trusts under what, if any, circumstances cost can be the main factor in refusing treatment to a patient.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government have made clear that it is not acceptable for a health authority to refuse treatment solely on the grounds of cost.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, within the guidelines referred to in the Question, if there are two centres of excellence, such as exist in a part of Manchester—for example, the. Wythenshawe Hospital with its expertise in heart and lung surgery and the world famous Christie Hospital that treats cancer patients—and those two trusts find themselves running short of money, which results in a diminution in the number of people or cases they can treat, is there any way they can make a special appeal to the department for more funding to enable them not to decrease their workload?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we expect trusts to balance their books at the end of the year but there are areas in which we put some transitional funding when we feel it is essential.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I have written evidence that some totally deaf people who could have their hearing restored have been denied cochlear implants solely on the grounds of cost when those people desperately want the treatment? The doctors have said they are willing to give the treatment but the cash simply is not available. Is it possible for the Minister to tell the House whether this is government policy and, if it is not, what can she do to help?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think it is accepted now that the health service cannot fulfil every demand that is made of it. That is not only true of this country; it is true of every country in the world. It is up to health authorities to set their priorities. I am sure that the particular cases which the noble Lord has mentioned are taken into account but maybe they have to wait a little longer until funds are available.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there are many choices which
1612
have to be made which are not made on a cash basis at all but which are governed by a shortage of items such as kidneys and bone marrow that are available for transplants? We need more donors to come forward. The health service will always be faced with choices.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right, in that there are a number of constraints but it is interesting to see that in 1979 there were three heart transplants and in 1994 there were 342. I think that illustrates how the National Health Service is trying to keep up with new demands and with increasing technology, which of course is very expensive.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, can the Minister comment on the use of the drug beta-interferon which is an example of a new type of treatment to which she has referred? I understand that, although this drug is now regarded as being clinically effective for some people with multiple sclerosis, there are many health authorities in the country which are not using it because it is expensive. Do the Government agree with that policy?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with regard to beta-interferon, a licence application has been made to the European Medicines Evaluation Agency and certainly our guidelines to health authorities are that, with regard to licensed drugs, costs should not be a factor.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there has always been rationing in the health service? It used to be rationing by waiting lists and now it is rationing by treatments, which is much more apparent to the general public.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, of course there have to be priorities set but I think the important thing is that it is clinicians who should set the priorities when they are faced with individual patients before them. Our policy is very strongly that that: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether beta-interferon, which has been mentioned, is a drug that even in the United States will be subject to a ballot process because it is such a rare and costly drug and it cannot be produced in sufficient quantities?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer my noble friend but I shall certainly write to her.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I hope I can be forgiven for coming back. Will the Minister bear in mind that in the case of deaf children if the treatment is delayed after the age of five it is too late in some cases

1613
for the implant? Therefore delays really mean no treatment. Will that be borne in mind by the Government?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sure that would be borne in mind by the health authorities who commission these treatments and also by the clinicians. I do not think that is an issue for the Government.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I of course accept that the National Health Service cannot offer every treatment, however expensive, to everyone. However, what I think is causing dissatisfaction is that some purchasing and some providing authorities can provide certain treatments and others cannot but there is an uneven situation pertaining in different parts of the country. What has happened to the slogan that the money will follow the patient that was very much part of the reason for bringing in the 1990 Act?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, priorities have to be set. In fact, the Select Committee in the other place has been doing a study on this subject. On Friday the Government will give their response to the Select Committee's report, which reflects the Government's policy that priorities are best set locally. It is inappropriate that we should try to do that centrally from Whitehall. We cannot be sufficiently sensitive to local situations.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, on a simpler matter, can the Minister say why it is that when a patient was discharged from hospital and was attended by a district nurse she was refused the size of dressing which was used all the time she was in hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is an extremely technical question. I shall do my best to answer it. The interesting aspect is that in October last year we introduced a new scheme under which district nurses can prescribe. That includes dressings and a whole range of medication. That will overcome some of these problems because it will give district nurses more flexibility.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, to follow up that point, the district nurse does prescribe. The matter was referred to Aberdeen, where the pricing bureau refused the request on the grounds that the dressing was too large. It was not too large in hospital, but it became too large when the matter came to Comrie. It is obvious that if the prescription was refused by the pricing bureau it was refused on grounds of cost.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this sounds seriously like a Scottish Question. I am aware that in Scotland they have not introduced nurse prescribing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can I take it from the Minister's reply to my first Question that the doctors have the final say, and that in the case of an over demanding patient who wishes to go over the doctor's head to the chief executive of a trust the request will be met by a firm "no"?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, treatment depends very much on the consultation between the doctor and
1614
the patient and the trust between them. I am aware that some patients are over-demanding. We launched a campaign last year entitled "Help us to help you" under which we suggest to patients that there are ways in which they can help GPs especially, in terms of call-out and not being over demanding.

Works of Art: French Auction Procedures
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether it is the case that France prohibits the sale by auction of works of art in France outside its state system of Commissaires Priseurs; whether this is contrary to the Treaty of Rome and the practice of other member states of the European Community; and, if so, what action they propose to take to ensure that France complies with its obligations.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, in France all sales of works of art must be undertaken by Commissaires Priseurs. That is an unacceptable restriction on the ability of British auction houses to operate in France. The Government have made repeated representations on this matter both to the French authorities and to the European Commission. The European Commission has told us that it will take legal proceedings against the French Government under the treaty.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that thoroughly satisfactory reply. Is it not quite clear that the French are deliberately breaking their obligations under the Treaty of Rome?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, first, I am delighted that my Answer was thoroughly satisfactory to my noble friend. That is always an encouragement. I do not know whether it was deliberate action to break the treaty or whether it is a question of the way in which the French operate. Nevertheless, they are breaking the treaty and action is being taken to put that right.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the long-established French auction system, although it is different from ours, works well and operates throughout the whole of France? Is he also aware that the French authorities are now much more sympathetic to the admission of our own auction houses to the French market despite opposition from the Commissaires Priseurs, but nevertheless a decision will probably have to await the outcome of the French presidential elections?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for providing the House with that information. I am not too familiar with the auction system which operates in France. However, I am aware that under the Commissaires Priseurs system people must have training and take an exam. They are then individually appointed by the state. That militates against the operation of our auction houses in France.

1615
If, as the noble Lord says, there is a feeling in France that our auction houses would be welcomed, that is at least one step forward. I hope that the Commission will prod the French to take a second step forward.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have the finest art auction houses in the world? Although a complaint has been made to the Commission, does the Minister agree that there is a dilemma and perhaps it is up to the French to protest, since many major French sales are being held by our auction houses in Monte Carlo and Geneva?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the French can protest as much as they like. I agree with my noble friend that we have the finest auction houses in the world, and they ought to be able to operate fairly and freely within the European Community. At present the French are conducting themselves in a way which is contrary to Article 59; and Article 169 of the treaty deals with breaches of Community law.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to indicate what stage the proceedings initiated by the European Commission have reached and when it is likely that they will reach the European Court of Justice? Can the Minister also indicate whether the Government propose to request the Commission to consider the possibility of devising a system that would protect works of art within the European Union which are rendered vulnerable to purchase by overseas interests, however valuable they may be, or because of their inherent value?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the second part of the question is rather far removed from the first part. However, I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, when the case will come to the European Court of Justice. At present the Commission has said that it is not satisfied with the replies that it has received from the French; an Article 169 letter has been sent to the French. They are then given two months in which to reply. If it is not satisfied, the Commission issues a reasoned opinion and the French either comply with that opinion or the Commission will take them to the European Court.

Asbestos: 2, Marsham Street
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Stedman asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the building at 2 Marsham Street contains asbestos, and, if so, what precautions will be taken when the building is demolished to secure the safety of the staff and the avoidance of asbestos in the air over Westminster.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the building at 2 Marsham Street does contain some asbestos. Asbestos was extensively used in buildings of its generation, mainly for thermal insulation and as a fire resisting material. Any asbestos considered to pose
1616
a potential health risk to staff or contractors working in the building has already been removed. The remaining material is carefully monitored and will be removed prior to demolition. The asbestos will be stripped out under controlled conditions to ensure that no fibres escape into the atmosphere.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which is satisfactory so far as concerns the position today. When the buildings are pulled down, I hope that we shall have the assurance that at that time the asbestos is under control. Otherwise there is not much point in moving staff in the Department of Transport from what is supposedly a structurally unsafe building into modern new offices in Horseferry Road where they are dependent on the ventilation system in order to gain air into the building. I am satisfied with what the Minister has said at this stage.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness is kind enough to indicate her satisfaction. Perhaps I may inform the House that asbestos material is removed under fully controlled conditions to prevent the escape of any material into the air. Contractors are required to comply with various asbestos regulations, notify the Health and Safety Executive 28 days in advance of works, and undertake work in accordance with standard government specification on asbestos work.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the spread of asbestosis can be extremely serious? What he has said today gives some satisfaction that the Government are aware of that. However, are local authorities also informed of the concern of the Government to prevent its spread?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes, I believe we are now all aware of the serious nature of asbestos. Its removal has to be done in the way I described. The noble Lord asked about local authorities. The material which is removed not only from 2 Marsham Street but any other building is taken away by licensed carriers in sealed skips to licensed tips controlled by the local waste authority—that is, after all, a local authority duty—typically, clay-lined pits in Bedfordshire and Essex.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that they know exactly where asbestos has been placed in 2 Marsham Street? As I understand it, records are missing regarding how ducts were clad with asbestos. We are in a state of uncertainty. Despite the noble Viscount's encouraging answers, will he give an assurance that the Government are fully satisfied that they know exactly where the threat is?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, asbestos material in Marsham Street was used for pipe and duct insulation, wall linings, and some ceilings, and duct covers. Regular inspections of properties are carried out and up-to-date records maintained. I do not appreciate that there is a difficulty. However, I believe that the noble Lord may have some query. If he would like to let me know of any difficulty of which he may be aware, I shall be pleased to follow it up.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I declare an interest, living a hundred yards from Marsham Street, as do many other people. Can my noble friend guarantee that none of the residents will be affected by the asbestos dust?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I indicated what I believe is the current situation. Indeed, when the building is demolished—I know that my noble friend may look forward to that—the same care will be taken to remove the asbestos before the demolition task is undertaken.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I am grateful for his invitation to supply what information I have? The information comes from the Civil Service unions which claim that vital records of many sites, including Marsham Street, where asbestos was used, have been lost. Indeed, one union spokeswoman said, "We are extremely concerned that vital information has gone missing". I shall provide chapter and verse for the noble Viscount at his request. In the meantime, does he agree that the Government should look into the matter?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall be pleased to see any evidence the noble Lord has. It concerns me if that is indeed the case. However, regular inspections, in particular of 2 Marsham Street, are undertaken. As the building was not constructed all that long ago, I believe that the records indicate where the problems exist.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I believe that 23 years ago, with my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I was one of the first people in that building. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was there shortly afterwards. Does my noble friend consider that the health of the 18 to 20 noble Lords who have spent some time in the building should be monitored?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps it would be just as well to monitor the 5,000 civil servants who work in the building too.
Earl Grey: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell me what happens to the waste asbestos? Where does it go? How is it dealt with?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in a previous answer I indicated that the material is taken in sealed skips to licensed tips and carefully disposed of.

Rail Privatisation: Safety
2.58 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Where responsibility will lie for safety on the privatised railways.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, in any industry, the Health and Safety at Work Act places responsibility for ensuring safety on the party controlling the activity in question, in this case Railtrack
1618
and the individual operators. Railtrack will have primary responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the network. The Health and Safety Executive will continue to act as the independent regulatory body responsible for enforcing all aspects of safety on the railways.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I certainly accept that anyone engaged in the management of railway operations has a huge responsibility. Can I be assured from his reply that the final responsibility and the power to oversee safety arrangements are in independent hands?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes, the key oversight role is with the Health and Safety Commission.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Friday of this week the chairman of British Rail will retire? He has carried those responsibilities for the past five years. In thanking him for his service, will the Minister note that he described the plans for privatisation over which he had to preside as inordinately expensive and intensely bureaucratic and stated that he would not buy shares in any of the companies concerned?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, Sir Bob has the right to express his own opinions. However, it is right to bear in mind that he wanted a vertically integrated, shall we say, monolithic railway, and we did not.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I echo what my noble friend Lord Taylor said about the contribution made by Sir Bob Reid—sometimes challenging, often controversial, but absolutely right on this occasion. Will the noble Viscount indicate whether he is satisfied with railway safety at present? While it would be wrong to describe the railways as unsafe, is it not correct to say that failures resulting from dilapidated equipment consequential on investment deficiency cause immense disruption, inconvenience and massive delays? What do the Government propose to do about that now rather than waiting for privatisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we give the issue of safety paramount importance. We believe that, with privatisation, the more efficient running of the railway, together with access to new sources of commercial funds and investment, will provide a better railway. As regards the current position, British Rail has invested £4 billion in new rolling stock since 1979. I very much welcome BR's recent formal invitation to tender for further Networker trains for the Kent services.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister has not replied to my question. Is it not a fact that substantial disruption, inconvenience and delays occur because the Government failed to provide British Rail with sufficient investment to enable dilapidated equipment to be removed and replaced by effective modem equipment? Why do the Government not turn their attention to that problem immediately?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord. I repeat my contention that we believe that privatisation will bring significant benefits to the railway system and the travelling public.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, aside from the main Question, which received a satisfactory and correct Answer, has not the effect of the supplementary questions flowing from it been unnecessarily to breed alarm and despondency? That is bound to undermine the proper course of railway or any other privatisation. In a way, is it not an abuse of parliamentary freedom?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is certainly not for me to try to suggest what questions noble Lords should put. It is for me to try to answer them to the best of my ability. I believe that I have managed to reassure the House about the safety arrangements which will be in place after privatisation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give some indication of the nature and extent of the new funds to which the privatised industries will have access? Have not those funds existed for a long time? What new sources of finance are there which do not come from abroad?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the new sources of funds are private sector investors who will run the railway and provide their own commercial funding for a decent, proper and substantially better railway network.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend accept my congratulations on the versatility he has shown in answering supplementary questions which have absolutely nothing to do with the original Question?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we aim to please.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, as one who uses the Great Western line of British Rail a great deal, I wish to ask whether my noble friend is aware that improvements on the line over the past year have been considerable. I can only suggest that that is due to the coming privatisation of the line.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's comment.

Disability Discrimination Bill
3.3 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Prior set down for this day shall be limited to five hours. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Economy
3.4 p.m.
Lord Prior Lord Prior rose to call attention to the state of the economy, including levels of exports and unemployment; developments in industrial relations; and the challenges arising from technological development and world competition; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some of my noble friends have said to me that they were surprised that I had put down such an anodyne Motion. However, I can assure them that it was the Clerks at the Table who made me change my Motion to an anodyne one. I understand that it is the practice of the House on Wednesdays not to have in any way controversial Motions. That may make for a better understanding within the House, but it does not necessarily make for a better debate. However, I do not intend to be vastly controversial in my remarks, although I dare say that I may stray a little into controversy along the way.
I wish to examine the state of our economy and start by saying that I believe that the economy is in better shape now than at any time in the past 50 years, with the possible exception of two short periods in 1959–60 and perhaps 1968–69, when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Yet, as we all know to our cost—particularly on this side of the House—the feel-good factor is markedly absent at the moment. Paradoxically, I believe that the economy may well continue to strengthen just as long as the feel-good factor is absent. Low wage increases, static or declining house prices and so-called negative equity do not make people happy, nor do poor retail sales. Neither, I suspect, does a low level of inflation help. I remember Mr. Harold Macmillan, as he then was, on one occasion making a remark to me when I happened to discuss with him the subject of the economy and inflation. He said: "There's an awful lot of talk about low inflation, but the rich like inflation because they can always sell a picture; the poor like inflation because they have more pound notes in their pockets". Then he looked sharply at a particularly important member of the Conservative Party and said: "It's only retired colonels who don't like inflation". I have a feeling that that accounts in part for the lack of feel-good factors in the economy.
I wish to start by considering our trade position and the balance of payments which at the moment are extraordinarily satisfactory. I cannot remember a time when we were growing so rapidly when the balance of payments was not deteriorating sharply. Yet here we have a situation where exports are strong and imports much less strong. Undoubtedly, devaluation in September 1992 was the correct course and the benefits have been self-evident. However, unlike a number of other occasions, the fruits of devaluation have not been thrown away. If the Government have to accept the blame for clinging to the European monetary system, or, more reasonably, entering it at the wrong exchange rate, they are also entitled to claim the credit for the manner in which the economy has responded since. The

1621
Government have taken hard decisions on increasing tax and holding public expenditure. The budget deficit has been reduced without plunging the economy back into recession, as many critics predicted a year or so ago. It is vital that we should now continue on that course.
Of course, we would all like to see tax cuts and perhaps more public expenditure on our favourite items such as education and health. But that should not be at the expense of the better balanced economy that we now have. I would go so far as to say that I do not believe that cheap popularity, or even electoral popularity, can be won now simply by unjustified tax reductions. But the facts of real prosperity will take time to show through.
The economy has undergone massive changes in the past 16 years. In the early 1980s, and since that time, there has been a vast improvement in industrial relations. That has been helped by legislation which we almost take for granted nowadays. There appears to be general agreement that little more than minor changes are now required. Legislation has not prevented legitimate and reasonable trade union activity; and I am impressed by most of the new generation of trade union leaders whose attitude seems to me to be very sensible and robust.
Privatisation is broadly recognised as a great success story. Much of it is now copied around the world. Apart from the more obvious benefits, it has altered the balance of bargaining power and the ability of strong trade unions in the past to hold the country to ransom—as we all knew to our cost in governments of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. This recognition of a common interest between the ineptly named two sides of industry has removed a major wage-push inflation factor which caused us so many problems in those years and led to so much strife into the bargain.
I mentioned that privatisation has been copied around the world. Others, including the fast emerging countries of the Middle East, East and South-East Asia and South America, recognise that investment and infrastructure projects, which are so desperately needed, can come about only with the help of private sector finance. The cost may in the short run be higher: levels of private sector finance interest are higher than state interventions and private sector finance has to be remunerated properly. But the state's limited resources often mean a delay of many years in modernisation, with the resultant increased costs. Others seem to have grasped this message rather more quickly than have Treasury officials here, even though there is much greater understanding hem on that point than there was a few years ago.
I remember well that in the early days of the Conservative Government, then led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, there was a hole where the Queen Elizabeth centre now stands. The question was whether there would ever be sufficient money to build the conference centre that was so badly needed. The Treasury said that it had no money for the project; but the Coal Board pension fund had plenty of money. However, the Coal Board pension fund wanted a higher rate of interest than the Government or the Treasury
1622
thought was reasonable, and they kept saying, "We shall be able to do this at a cheaper cost than borrowing from the Coal Board pension fund; but of course we can't do it now". So the project waited and waited, and the hole was there for years and years before anything happened. In the end, of course, the Treasury found the money. But the cost of waiting on so many infrastructure projects is far greater than the extra cost of allowing the private sector to get on with them straight away. It has taken years for the Treasury to come to this understanding, which frankly other countries have arrived at very much more quickly than we have.
Overseas, the growth of "build, operate and transfer" schemes has given British industry great opportunities and can carry export led growth forward for many years. Here I should perhaps declare my interest as chairman of GEC, since what I am about to say is very relevant to its particular deeds. We all know that the growth in world trade will, and must, come from the developing world. The estimate is that 75 per cent. in the increase in world trade over the next 20 years will come from those countries. Britain is in an enormously powerful position to take advantage of this boom. Our vast pension fund assets available for profitable investment, the financial centre of the City of London and our expertise in high-tech infrastructure projects combine together to form a formidable package. Once these investments are made, the spares, the extensions and the need to use similar equipment can help to ensure a continuing demand for our goods for many years. The use of the English language, the good relations which on the whole exist between Britain and the developing world and the still important ties between the Commonwealth and the Monarchy give us a golden opportunity. Some further redirection of Foreign Office resources could help with trade—although I pay tribute to the vastly improved service and enthusiasm displayed by embassies around the world.
I noticed a long article in the Daily Mail today on the subject of waste in the Foreign Office. I believe that it is entirely the wrong target. I have nothing, and find nothing, but praise among exporters for the work that the Foreign Office does. It has changed over quite a bit of its manpower from some of the more plushy embassies of Europe and the western world and has put its people into the developing world, where they will do much more good. That process may have to go a little further, but it is far better than it was before. I can speak volumes for the vast majority of ambassadors now who regard their task of helping British industry as perhaps their number one priority. The availability of credit through ECGD is much enhanced and rates are much more competitive, although in some markets there is still room for improvement.
There is the vexed question of the aid and trade provision, which has taken up so much parliamentary time in the past year or so. It works out at only some £100 million a year. We are vastly behind our competitors in this regard. They spend far more than we do. A country such as France would probably spend more than £100 million on helping Indonesia in one year, whereas Britain's total spending for the whole world is no more than £100 million.
Support from Ministers, and particularly the DTI, has been first-class. It has to be realised that east of Suez you are still very largely dealing with governments. This is where Ministers have an extremely important part to play. The more ministerial visits that are made, the better it is for our industry and our exports. I pay particular tribute to Mr. Richard Needham, who as trade Minister has done an excellent job for British industry.
This is not the time for a lengthy discussion of the importance for our trade of the European Union. However, it is ridiculous of people to talk about withdrawal, as the Small Business Conference did last weekend. Nothing could be more damaging to our trade than withdrawal from the European Union. Over 50 per cent. of our trade is with the European Union; 40 per cent. of our manufactured exports are foreign-owned and targeted at Europe. If we abandon the Union, it would certainly abandon us. The Government are right to keep down social costs, which, unchecked, would undermine our competitive position; and they are right to postpone any decision about monetary union. It would be more than silly to make a decision now, and equally silly that we go on leading with our chin in the way that some people would wish us to do. The opportunity for independent national action in an international trade is now very limited. We are part of a global economy and have to adjust national policies to take advantage of it.
No economic debate would be relevant if it did not address the problem of unemployment. No one needs reminding of the social pressures, the misery and distress that are caused by levels of unemployment which 25 years ago would have been regarded as totally unacceptable and politically impossible. I made my maiden speech in the other place over 36 years ago on the Local Employment Bill. At that time, the Local Employment Bill defined areas of high unemployment as those with 4 per cent. or more unemployed. Today, we should regard a figure of 4 per cent. unemployed as a more than satisfactory state of affairs and a great achievement if it were to happen.
So what is happening? To compete with the rest of the world we have had to adopt their new techniques. That has weeded out millions of jobs. Old labour-intensive, large material users of labour and expensive industry have been replaced by modern technology. That progress and change are bound to continue. A leading article in The Times on Saturday wondered whether the process of weeding out had not gone too far. But if we do not weed out, I am afraid that we shall just become less competitive; and if we become less competitive, we lose whole industries and all the jobs that go with them. So we have to go on weeding out wherever we can.
Sadly, there is now a growing gap between those with high skills and those with none. Our best and only hope is to be a country of high skills and high prosperity, producing added value products. That is the only way to bring wealth sufficient to employ at reasonable rates people in jobs where little or no skill is required, particularly in the provision of some of the services.
In manufacturing industry, the teeming, unskilled workforces of the East are bound to win most of the unskilled, repetitive work. Recently in Japan I was told by a Japanese businessman that he could and did employ 140 people in Indonesia for the same cost as employing one man to do the same job in Japan. We can aid our process toward fuller employment, but only if we are realistic in what we are seeking to achieve and realise the very long-term nature of our objectives. In other words, the change to more employment cannot be done quickly. It will take time. The swift decline in manufacturing industry over the past 20 years may have been halted, but it will take years of greater productive investment and government encouragement to improve the trend and, we hope, lead to more employment.
The Government have achieved important advances in expanding higher education. But there are serious problems in our schools, particularly the woeful shortage of good science and maths teachers. Frankly, that will only be put right by recognising that it requires much more encouragement and higher pay for them and that not all teachers can be paid and treated the same. Differential pay may be an awkward subject for the educational establishment to grasp but it has to come and come quickly. It also means a wider syllabus at A-level to include at least one science-related subject which all pupils should take; and a foreign language would also be useful.
If a change is now required in our culture, which has for too long been against industry, a change is equally required in education. We have to give higher priority to education. As parents we must think more about education. How many people do we know who quite glibly take their children out of school for a fortnight's holiday during the term? We cannot. afford to accept that. The thirst for education in some of the developing countries is staggering and emotionally it is very moving to see the sacrifices being made. They could catch up with us, and some are doing so quite rapidly. That is the only way that we shall increase our general wealth. The old remedy of buying our way out of unemployment is no longer available to us.
Certainly in the economy generally there is no room for complacency. But equally there is no reason to be apologetic. The Prime Minister has shown considerable courage and understanding of industry's problems, as well as great personal resilience. He does not deserve the treatment meted out by much of the press, which has been very unfair. I am frequently asked by people overseas who have admiration for the genius of our people and the manner in which we conduct our affairs why we devote more space to our private indiscretions than to our public accomplishments. It appears to be fashionable to rubbish the Government. But, just as an over-sycophantic press could see no wrong in the performance of the 1980s, so it appears to see no right now. It is time that we put the record straight, and perhaps this House is the best, and in some cases the only, place capable of doing so.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, for introducing a debate on this immensely important subject. The noble Lord used the word "non-controversial". As noble Lords know, I am never controversial, and I shall have no difficulty whatsoever in following that course.
There is an interesting philosophical question: when did history begin? To some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, and certainly some of his noble and honourable friends, appear to believe that history began in 1994 or thereabouts. I believe that, so far as this Government are concerned, it began in 1979. The fact that the out-turn for 1994–95 looks reasonably good is to be welcomed. But even the most incompetent government, choosing policies at random, could be expected to get things right one year in 16.
Let me turn to more serious matters. In preparing my speech, I felt that the most useful contribution that I could make to your Lordships' deliberations would be to review the performance of this Government and offer a kind of balance sheet of successes and failures. I must say to those noble Lords who have not yet left the Chamber that this will be a classic case of the economist's, "on the one hand, this; and, on the other hand, that".
I shall start with an achievement. Over the lifetime of this Government, the inflation rate has been about 5 per cent. per annum compared with over 13 per cent. in the previous decade. Average inflation measured in wage terms has fallen from 14 per cent. to half of that. One must add that in both cases the position today is better than the Government's own average. That is on the plus side.
I turn next to an obvious failure, to which the noble Lord, Lord Prior, alluded. In the same period, percentage unemployment has averaged between 6 per cent. and 12 per cent., whereas in the previous decade the range was between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent. Under this Government, in no year has unemployment fallen as low as its worst figure in the previous 10 years. One does not have to be a genius to work out that there is a connection between the two.
The abandonment of full employment as a target is connected with focusing on inflation as the main evil. Improvement in the one has been paid for by worsening in the other. The rate of exchange has meant around 1 percentage point more of unemployment for each one percentage point less in inflation.
There is one consequence of the improved inflation rate, which I hope the Minister will comment on when he replies. I must warn him that I have four or five other such questions. In the 1970s, the real rate of interest measured with respect to short or long-term government paper was usually negative. It was certainly bad for those who lent to the Government. In the 1980s and 1990s it has been positive, with the long rate, for example, being typically between 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. Economic analysis tells us that that is not a
1626
sustainable rate in the long run if gross domestic product grows at only 2 per cent. Either inflation will rise significantly or we shall head back into a serious slump. I should like to know if the Government have any views on the current level of real long-term rates of interest.
Perhaps, after a brief word on the unemployment numbers, the Government may claim to have found some more jobs out there. Despite their record on manipulating the unemployment figures, I should like to believe them. But, even accepting their figures, total employment hardly differs from that in 1979. The number of employees has gone down and the point holds, of course, a fortiori, for full-time employees. Beyond that, manufacturing employment has been falling steadily at an average annual rate of around 2.75 per cent.
Employment failure takes me on to another success. There can be no doubt that the rate of rise of manufacturing productivity at 4.2 per cent. per annum is double what it was in the previous decade. Since there has been little rise in manufacturing output, almost all the rise in productivity is due to a shake-out of workers. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, used the less than felicitous expression of "weeding out"; I do not care to use that expression.
We must look at the failure of manufacturing output to rise, the corresponding deterioration in the manufacturing balance of trade and moving to deficit for the first time in modern history, which gives the lie to the view that we have caught up with our competitors. If we had so caught up, output would be higher, the manufacturing balance of trade would be positive and there would be an investment boom in manufacturing.
On whole economy productivity the position is even more puzzling. It has risen at around 2 per cent. per annum, which is the same as in the previous decade. It is puzzling because management talk of the benefits of deregulation, of destroying the power of the trade unions and that their representatives approve of this Government. Yet overall present-day managerial performance is no better than their predecessors operating allegedly in a much harsher environment. All that has changed is that they now have the nerve to pay themselves quadruple and many more times the salaries that they thought they could get away with in the old days.
Noble Lords become upset when I am nasty about the Institute of Directors and the CBI. I would be a good deal less nasty if those bodies were less slavishly devoted to this Government and examined the real picture in a slightly more objective way. I referred to the international picture; what is remarkable is the stability of the growth of export volume. The growth rate has been around 3.33 per cent. per annum for the past 25 years. That suggests a powerful underlying force at work, though I do not have the faintest idea what it is. All the usual stuff about competitiveness in its various forms accounts for little of what has happened. However, just to intervene again with a positive word, what is worth noting is that our share of world trade in manufactures, having fallen continuously for many years, now seems to have stabilised. To be set against that, import volume also has the same chronic tendency

1627
to rise and to rise faster than exports. Indeed, under this Government the rate of rise of imports seems to have accelerated. The balance of payments on the current account was in surplus during the first years of this Government. It went into deficit in 1986 having been deteriorating since 1981, and has remained in deficit ever since.
Perhaps I can say a word about the outcome figures for 1994, which again the Chancellor of the Exchequer was crowing about last week. As I understand it, the improvement is overwhelmingly due to the behaviour of invisibles. Here too I must admit to being puzzled. Given the scale of the current deficits that we were experiencing until recently, I would have expected a net deterioration in the capital account to follow. Presumably one thing that may have occurred is that we are better at overseas investing than foreigners are at investing here—that is at least a possibility. Is that something that the Treasury believes? A much more persuasive possibility is that since our overseas assets are denominated in foreign currency terms, we have reaped the benefit of sterling devaluation. Is that the Treasury's view?
Reference to the exchange rate causes me to emphasise the scale of devaluation under this Government. If we merely look at the sterling index rather than at individual exchange rates, we note that the average value of sterling has fallen by 25 per cent. since this Government came to power. It is worth remarking that while 9 per cent. of that occurred as a result of our leaving the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, most occurred before then. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when he replies—echoing something mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prior—how much of the present recovery is to be attributed to the post-ERM devaluation.
I turn to the public finances, and here too we have some puzzles. It is certainly true that the ratio of total government revenues to GDP has been falling since 1982. But throughout the 1980s it was actually above the level left by the last Labour Government. The reason is the great increase in tax between 1979 and 1982. What is even more amusing is that the ratio of government expenditure to GDP rose between 1979 and 1984, and it was not until 1988 that it fell again below the level left by the last Labour Government. More to the point, from 1989 to 1993 it went beyond a level reached by only two years of the last Labour Government. To add to the nonsense of that, much of it is not on goods and services, but is on transfer payments. Nonetheless, for a Government whose rhetoric is anti-public sector, the reality is bizarre.
One can go further. Tax cuts and public expenditure increases over the life of this Government have left the public finances in a parlous condition. The budget has been in deficit in all but two years, and profligacy after 1989 led to even larger deficits. It is of great interest to note that the ratio of the deficit to GDP in 1993 was actually larger than in the IMF crisis year of 1976. How this Government ever dared to claim that they believed in sound finance is beyond me. The fact that the City supports them tells us much more about the sort of people who work in our financial institutions than about
1628
economic reality. What is surprising, given that, is that we do not have more scandals than Barings, Lloyd's and BCCI—or perhaps we do and do not know about them.
I have not been able recently to join in your Lordships' deliberations on the economic aspects of the European Union. But I am aware that likely developments to do with such things as a single currency exercised some noble Lords, including many of my noble friends, because of the alleged effects on our economic sovereignty. The most important decision which had that kind of effect had nothing whatever to do with the European Union. It was a decision I agree with, taken by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer who is a Member of your Lordships' House—I refer to the abolition of exchange controls introduced by Sir Geoffrey Howe (as he then was). That was the decision that limited our ability to pursue an independent monetary policy and, to some extent, an independent fiscal policy more so than Maastricht has or is likely to do. It is the case in our country today that decisions on interest rates can no longer be taken independently of decisions in other major countries for that reason and not for European Union reasons. That is so even if we paid no attention to the value of our currency, which I hope will never happen.
It must be appreciated that in a modem world even the most powerful nation is restricted in its scope for independent economic policy making, and certainly a small country such as ours—but one with an important and sophisticated financial system—is so restricted.
My last comment concerns competition from the so-called Pacific Rim countries of which China will soon be of overwhelming importance. I state in terms, and our own history tells us, that we cannot compete with such countries in the long run by wage cuts and the erosion of our social system. The noble Lord's right honourable friend Mr. Portillo could not be more ignorant of economic history and economics when he takes that view. Our future lies in a highly trained, highly productive, highly paid labour force led by first-class management in an entrepreneurial environment. The case against the Government for most of their history is that they failed to recognise that. I accept that they are doing so now, but rather late in the day. Are the Government true believers in a mixed economy or are they adopting our language and our approach because their own has been demonstrated to have failed and because the electorate clearly want a change? I really believe that that is so.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, for introducing the debate in the way he did. I have had the honour of knowing him over many years at a time when he held high office in government and also during the present period when he holds equally high office in business. I can think of no one who can give a wiser, more statesmanlike view of the economy than he did today. I agreed with a number of his comments.

1629
The noble Lord is right. As we all agree, the economy is now improving. Last year there was a growth of about 4 per cent.; this year it is still growing at a rate higher than the average of 2.5 per cent. However, within the economy as a whole there are a variety of developments. I recently received reports covering two separate sectors. One read as follows:
"This latest survey dispels recent doubts about the strength of recovery. Output and new orders continue to increase strongly, in both UK and export markets".
The other, which I received just about the same time, said":
"Business confidence has plummeted to a point where only 5 per cent. of respondents are feeling more confident about their future".
Those are two totally different views on the economy. The first report, from the March quarterly survey of the Engineering Employers' Federation, shows the buoyancy of the engineering industry at present. The second, from the February monthly snapshot survey of the National Council of Building Material Producers, demonstrates the uncertainty in the building industry. So there are plusses and minuses within the overall economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Prior—the point was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston—referred to recent export performance. There is not the slightest doubt, when one takes the overall balance into account, that the revised figures for 1994 and those so far for this year are positive. However, it is important to look into the figures. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out, the greatest part of the improvement notified in the revised figures for last year was investment income from abroad; that is, proceeds from British firms investing abroad. I have no objection to British firms investing abroad, although we might express the wish that they invest a little more at home. Much of the addition also came from improved earnings by the oil industry. We did very well in the North Sea where remarkable technological growth continues and deeper areas are being extracted.
However, when one looks at the non-oil visible exports, the position is somewhat different. Although there has been a substantial increase in exports in that sector, there has been an equally substantial increase in imports—something from which we have suffered for years. Moreover, the net improvement in that area between the two was only £1 billion and, over the year as a whole, we still showed a deficit of £14 billion on our non-oil visible trade account. Some in your Lordships' House participated in the review conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in 1985 when we drew attention to that phenomenon. Up to 1983, we showed a net benefit on our manufactured goods exports. We have lost that since, and the deficiency is still at a high level. I merely mention that fact to show that examination of the figures indicates that there is still a long way to go.
On the subject of exports, I fully endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Prior, about the help we receive from our embassies abroad. Indeed, I am appalled at the way they are being attacked at present. For many years I was involved in promoting our exports
1630
at the BOTB. We received first-class service in those days—I am sure that it has become even better since—from those overseas posts. I hope that their efforts will in no way be diminished in the face of the press vendetta being organised against them.
The Government clearly have two major aims in economic policy: one is to contain inflation; the other is to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. Those are two very laudable and desirable aims in which the Government are achieving a degree of success. But, as I believe most of us would agree, they are not enough in themselves to cover all aspects of economic policy. Indeed, they are not enough in themselves to bring about sustainable growth of a non-inflationary nature.
I shall single out but two other areas where I believe we need to concentrate snore attention even than we are doing at present. The first is unemployment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Prior, referred, and the other is investment. There are many others but, in the limited time available, I shall refer to those. There is no doubt that unemployment is now a dominant economic and social problem, not only in the UK but in Europe as a whole. It is worth noting that the European level of unemployment is higher than it is in the United States and in Japan. What has happened here seems to have created more unemployment than in those countries. That is a matter worth studying.
Unemployment is not only an economic and social problem in broad terms. What is beginning to emerge and is very worrying is the mismatch of skills. Many firms—I happen to be chairman of one—are finding it difficult to recruit people with the skills we require, while, at the same time, there is a very high level of unemployment. I believe that even more effort needs to be made to get that match right. Until we do so, we shall be bedevilled, on the one hand, by a shortage of skills and, on the other, by a surfeit of unemployed people.
The CBI produced a report last year on this subject which I thought excellent. It suggested that three things should be done: first, that there should be more training and guidance; secondly, that there should be more effective job-search arrangements; and, thirdly, that the benefit system should be made more flexible to stimulate the long-term unemployed to take up work. I am glad to note that the Government have followed the last suggestion with their jobseeker's allowance.
On investment, we are still undoubtedly lagging behind other countries. There is not only a need for more stimulus for private investment, especially for smaller firms. I am sorry that the Government missed the opportunity for doing something about it in the last Budget. There is also a crying need for more infrastructure investment. The public sector capital formation, now identified in the Red Book, is actually planned to fall progressively over the next three years. For 1995–96 it will fall in real terms by 6.7 per cent.; for 1996–97 it will fall by 2.9 per cent.; and for 1997–98, the figure will be down by 3.4 per cent. That will happen at a time when there is a growing need for increased investment in the infrastructure, particularly the transport infrastructure.

1631
The Government have stated that the Private Finance Initiative is meant to be in addition to government investment. The figures do not suggest that. I find somewhat surprising, when looking through the Red Book, that the proceeds of the National Lottery are now regarded as public sector investment. I find that very odd; indeed, the Treasury is adept at inventing rules as it goes along. However, for anyone who wishes to look into the matter, the facts will be found on page 127 of the Red Book. I do not know how such proceeds can conceivably be included in public sector investment. It is neither money raised by taxation nor by public debt.
If one takes out the benefits of the proceeds of the lottery, the fall in public investment in 1995-96 will be 10 per cent. That is not the sort of trend we should be seeing. Perhaps I may point out to your Lordships that the amount of public investment compared with total government expenditure is minimal—£22 billion of public investment compared with over £300 billion of total expenditure. We are just not investing sufficiently in the future so far as concerns the public sector.
The Government are reported to be contemplating cuts in direct taxation in the next Budget or the one after that. No doubt they will announce their intentions in due course. But it could at least be asked, when more is needed to deal with longer-term unemployment and the mismatch in the labour market, when more is needed to improve the essential infrastructure, and when more is needed to stimulate investment, especially in manufacturing, whether November 1995, or 1996, is the right time to reduce taxes rather than put more resources into those vital areas. It would be a matter of choosing between short and long-term objectives.
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, for this wide-ranging debate. I shall look forward and listen with great attention to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg. I want to make one point in this debate; namely, that structural unemployment and—perhaps I may put it this way—the future of work are such important topics and human issues that they should be addressed by the best minds of all parties, along with people from business, industry, the unions and possibly religious leaders. Even if there were a change of government, what I call structural unemployment, as opposed to cyclical unemployment, would not necessarily be removed. Therefore, I do not believe that the issue can be made into a political football. I quite agree that we cannot ignore the global market and overseas competition. Mere moralising from these Benches is not enough.
However, we have to admit that the second industrial revolution through which we are living has produced, as a by-product, a loss of jobs. Sometimes they were jobs which were drudgery and soul-destroying, although not always. The Wyre Forest in my diocese of Worcester had 50 foresters in the 1960s and it now has five. That is because machinery can cut the trees and drill the post holes. One could go on.
1632
I have no desire to be a prophet of doom. In the West Midlands, which is also part of the diocese of Worcester, and indeed in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley, there is greater confidence in local businesses, especially those which have tapped into the European and indeed the international market. However, according to figures which were given to me on Monday, in the West Midlands 22 people are chasing each job vacancy. Males between 18 and 29 years of age make up 37.8 per cent. of the unemployed figure. Those under 24 years of age comprise 29 per cent. of the unemployed. There is a net loss of job opportunities even when and as the population is rising. Banks, for example, tend not to be taking on young school-leavers.
Again, good things are being done by, for example, the Prince's Youth Business Trust which looks for opportunities in the self-employed area. But it is very glad if it can place two young people in the self-employed area. That is the tip of the iceberg. But, on the other hand, Pensnett College has had 100 per cent. success in placing its leavers in jobs, which is good news. Nevertheless, we need a long-term strategy which can sustain that.
Flexibility is one solution, but it is not wholly successful except with those who already have jobs. Flexibility, job-sharing and so on cannot give confidence to those who have a mortgage or have to pay to provide for a pension. Flexibility must go along with a matching security for people.
I return to the matter of the long-term unemployed. They are often the very people who cannot be employed in a technological society and, what is more, those least able to handle the leisure which is forced upon them. Furthermore, to enjoy the leisure society one needs to have a substantial income to buy into it. If a significant proportion of people in the nation are permanently without work, and if a higher percentage of those are from the ethnic minorities—in Birmingham the highest proportion of unemployment is in Sparkbrook, which speaks for itself—that will breed either apathy, on the one hand, or anger, on the other, which could erupt into violence and crime. We should not then have the cohesive society that we all desire.
One cannot have a cohesive society unless the people are happy. One cannot have a cohesive society unless the people can be proud of their nation. That is what we should all aim at. It is obvious how people gain their place, purpose, status and identity in society when one looks, for example, at the surnames which have come down to us through the years —Carpenter, Smith, Wright and Tyler. People are identified by the work they do and they find their place in society through being able to participate in its prosperity.
It seems to me that it is the duty of government, of whatever party, to see that the issue of the future of work is addressed, and addressed very quickly. It will not do to leave it until that longed for day in the future when we have the prosperity which we are looking for. We need it now. It may be achieved by allowing labour-intensive work still to be done in certain quarters. I fully agree that training is all important, but training for jobs which do not actually exist will just promote despair and frustration. What is certainly required is that

1633
an adequate proportion of new wealth, which we all seek, is invested in the long-term future. It must not just flow into private consumption. Therefore, within this wide-ranging debate I plead that unemployment and the future of work be not neglected.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I do hope that in being allowed to speak so early in this debate I am not usurping my noble kinsman. Had this been the Consolidated Fund Bill now, I should not have dared to open my mouth. Noble Lords may well feel that one of us is quite enough, so I promise not to try your Lordships' patience too far.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, reminded me that it was, I believe, Harry Truman who complained that all his experts held forth, "on the one hand, but then on the other hand". He prayed for a one-handed economist. George Bernard Shaw could have told him that, even if he had laid all his economists end to end, they still would not have reached a conclusion for him. I hope that on another occasion I may be able to take up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but on this occasion perhaps I might just offer your Lordships one conclusion of my own.
I believe that the recent combination of economic circumstances is in fact the most benign we have seen for a generation. Perhaps I may give just a few figures, and I promise your Lordships that they will be only a very few. Output is now well above its previous peak. Unemployment is down 600,000 in two years. In these circumstances, one might have expected trouble with our trade balance or with inflation, or with both. In fact, last year we achieved an impressive treble: growth of nearly 4 per cent., a current account broadly in balance and underlying inflation at a 30-year low.
Credit for that is due first and last to the enterprise and innovation of British business. But credit is also due to the policies of the 1980s and—perhaps less often recognised because we are closer to them—to the further distinct achievements of the 1990s, on which I hope I may be permitted to say a word or two.
The key change, I believe, is that not until the 1990s did the fight against inflation fully penetrate our economic behaviour. In the 1980s, even when inflation fell below 3 per cent., as it did briefly, average earnings never rose by less than 7.5 per cent. Today, earnings are rising at only 3.5 per cent.—that is less than half as fast.
Perhaps now we should turn to the other side of the labour market coin. Unemployment rose relentlessly in the 1970s, and in the 1980s it continued to rise for five years after the recovery had started. But in the 1990s, unemployment peaked at a lower level and began to fall within a year of the start of the recovery, and has continued to fall since. Of course, many factors have contributed: innovation, labour market reform and even demography. But a change in our inflation psychology is the vital element. As we have found often enough in
1634
our history, and as my noble friend Lord Prior reminded us, without that, neither the exchange rate nor fiscal policy offers a short cut to job creation.
Today we are seeing a renaissance in manufacturing, after decades of decline. Not until 1988 did manufacturing output match its previous peak, back in 1974. But the recession of the 1990s was much less deep than that of the early 1980s; recovery was therefore quicker, and our exports of finished manufactures rose a spectacular 17 per cent. during last year.
Some of our national pessimism, we are told, reflects the fact that more people feel that their jobs are vulnerable to change. In a competitive world, governments cannot wipe out all that anxiety. But they can eliminate the insecurity that is caused by inflation, which magnifies boom and bust, destroying savings and jobs. I hope that I may be permitted to remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has fought with courage and commitment against that fundamental source of instability and insecurity in our economy. As a result, we can have greater confidence in our economic future; greater certainty that we can enjoy the benefits of growth and that they will not turn to ashes in our mouths. I believe that that view will come to be more widely shared in the months ahead.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, although I hesitate to come between father and daughter, it is my privilege to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, on her excellent maiden speech. She comes to this House with impeccable credentials as an economist. She was one of our most distinguished economic journalists. She has worked in the media—not the BBC, I hasten to add—and has occupied a position at the heart of decision-making in the Prime Minister's Office. Although brief, the speech of the noble Baroness showed her mastery of detail and her ability to analyse a problem to its heart. I hope that she will give your Lordships' House the pleasure of her knowledge and expertise many times in the future.
As for me, I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Peston said most of what I wanted to say, so I shall have to take a slightly different tack. I agree with the noble Baroness that the present combination of low inflation and the high growth in both output and exports is unique and welcome. Two factors have contributed to that. Although my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington will not agree, it was our brief entry into and life within the exchange rate mechanism which dealt a blow to inflationary expectations which was so severe that I believe that people have adjusted themselves permanently to the idea of low inflation. That is an extremely painful thing to have to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Prior, pointed out, low inflation is not to everybody's liking.
Indeed, I can only welcome the absence of what we call the "feel-good factor". The last time that we had a feel-good factor was in 1987–88 and we paid dearly for it in the severe recession later. Therefore, let us pray that the feel-good factor does not return because, as I

1635
shall hope to point out in this brief speech, both the British economy and the world economy have changed so fundamentally that we shall not be able to enjoy the economic booms and busts that we used to have. If we were to try to have them again, that would cause severe damage to our competitive prospects.
Therefore, I repeat that I welcome the combination of circumstances, of which one factor was the ERM. Another factor for which credit has to be paid is that, having run up a rather large PSBR in preparation for the election in 1992, bold and hard decisions were taken to increase the tax burden. When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont decided substantially to increase the tax burden to bring the deficit under control. That will not help the Government—but that is their problem, not mine—but I believe that the decision to return to a low PSBR, which had been promised for many years but which had not been achieved, was a bold decision—and it has been kept to. I hope that that continues to be the case because, like the noble Lord, Lord Prior, I hope that the temptation to cut taxes is not grasped.
Although we have low inflation now, the credibility of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer in the world's financial markets is not yet established. Looking at the interest rates on gilts, the UK pays 1 percentage point more in long-dated gilts than comparable countries such as Germany and the United States. That shows that we are not yet trusted by the markets to stick to the financial discipline that we claim to be following. Looking at indexed gilt prices, the market thinks that the underlying inflation rate, to which this economy is addicted, is at present 5 per cent. not 2.5 per cent. There is a long, hard slog ahead. Whichever party is in power—I hope that it is mine—we shall have to stick to strict financial discipline to establish the credibility of the UK's policy-making, because that is how we should be thinking—long term. To opt for tax cuts and quick fixes is to think in a short-term fashion —and we have suffered from that for long enough.
As I have said, I welcome the nice combination of circumstances, and I hope that we stick to the policy. I hope that we tackle the problems that we face with the UK economy. As has already been pointed out, those problems also arise because of globalisation and the rapidity of technological progress. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, one consequence of that is the persistence of high structural unemployment. The right reverend Prelate is right to say that that is the most serious problem that we face. We must think carefully about it.
It is obvious that, if our manufacturing industry is to stay competitive and to retain its share of GDP and of world markets, productivity will have to grow so fast that there is not much hope of creating extra jobs in manufacturing. Yes, there will perhaps be a few more jobs, but I do not believe that the manufacturing sector will be a large source of extra employment. Manufacturing employment last peaked in 1966, and I do not think that we shall see anything like that level again.
1636
The problem is that once one takes out the tradable sector, manufacturing and competitive financial services—both of which will have to be not labour-absorbing but output-creating—we are in an economy in which wealth creation and job creation are for the first time two separate activities. That poses a great dilemma. The sectors which will grow and create income and wealth will not create jobs. Jobs will be created somewhere else. I believe that that will be in what we call the "non-tradable sectors" such as the public services or the private service sector. It is a hard thing to say, but by their very nature those are jobs in which productivity is not high and cannot grow rapidly.
Therefore, job creation will present us with the severe problem of earnings inequality. We will have to have supplementary policies to take account of earnings inequality and match them with some fiscal policy or we will have to live with the tensions that earnings inequality will create. That is the dilemma that we will have to face—and quite soon. Whichever way we do it—whether we create jobs in the non-tradeable sector, which will cost us money (whether it be the private or the public sector), or maintain jobs in the manufacturing sector, which will also cost a lot of money—it will also cost money to train our labour force for the jobs which will come in order to save it from obsolescence.
All that means that the demand for savings and investment in the economy will be substantially higher than we have experienced before. In the 1980s, there was an unwelcome and remarkable splurge in consumption. As it is, today the economy consumes far too much and saves far too little. We have to have policies which will permanently raise the savings rate, attract capital from abroad, and persuade capital to stay at home, as far as is possible, in a market friendly way. Our need for investment will be large, both in terms of training and fixed capital.
If we are to do all that, it means—I return to where I started—that the feel-good feeling that we had—the feeling of living off our capital assets, which we did profligately for a long time—will have to come to a stop. We will have to live within our means and save substantial amounts of money so as to be able to manage the economy properly. We cannot go on paying real rates of interest, the size of which my noble friend Lord Peston pointed out. If we are to get real interest rates down, we will need a sensible, long-term fiscal strategy and a strategy to raise savings and investment in the economy which will bring lasting prosperity. The task is urgent, and I hope that someone undertakes it quite soon.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, those who regulate our procedure have laid it down that when congratulations are being offered in respect of a maiden speech, they should be offered only by the noble Lord who immediately follows the maiden speaker, and, perhaps, by the Minister. Nonetheless, I hope that in the agreeable personal circumstances in which I find myself today, I may be permitted to break that rule and to say how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, and how impressed I was with the clarity

1637
of her economic thinking. I would add, in confirmation, how much I appreciated the very generous tribute paid to her by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, which I thought was proper and reflected great credit upon both her and the noble Lord.
The difficulty with the debate is that most of us are kept to a short speech. Therefore, although the occasion is valuable and one appreciates the action of my noble friend Lord Prior in moving the Motion, it is not a substitute for a full-dress economic debate on, for example, the Consolidated Fund Bill. I say that because my noble friend the Minister of State for Social Security tried to fob off attempts the other day to obtain a proper debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill by drawing attention to the fact that your Lordships would be discussing the country's economy today. I hope that your Lordships will not allow yourselves to be fobbed off with that type of excuse in the future.
There is very little time in which to say much, but I should like to comment on an admirable article which appeared in The Times towards the end of last week. It summed up the economic position with great accuracy. The article was entitled, "UK enjoys best trade figures in nine years". It stated:
"The biggest surprise came on the current account, where a combination of booming exports and high invisible earnings from services such as banking, tourism, insurance and investment income from abroad cut Britain's current account deficit to only £168 million for the year".
The article pointed out that in the previous year the deficit was in billions. That is an indication that the Government's economic policy, although one can criticise details of it, as I do on occasion, is working. The economy is improving. One notices that particularly in the contrast between what is happening in our economy and what is happening in all the countries of the European Union. We are doing better than they are. That indicates that the policies now being pursued are right and should be followed up firmly and with determination. It does not mean—I hasten to say this at once—that we should do no more.
We need to take the policies further. In particular, we need to pursue a policy of low taxation, of restraint in wage levels, and of encouraging initiative in all directions, because we still have—there is no avoiding this—the problem of a high unemployment. It is true that it is falling satisfactorily. It has fallen by some 600,000 over the past year or so; it is encouraging that that is so. But it is still too high. Unemployment is a particularly noxious state of affairs—harmful to individuals and to the general well-being of the country.
How are we to cope with that? Only by being increasingly competitive in our trade, not just with the European Community but in the world market. We need to be highly competitive and to be able to export all over the world. It is gratifying—your Lordships are entitled to some feeling of satisfaction over this—that so many countries, such as Japan, when looking for investment in this part of the world, choose to invest predominantly in this country rather than in any of the other countries of the European Community.
1638
It is interesting that those who have no particular sentimental feeling towards this country but who are concerned to have an investment that will be useful, productive and profitable to them decide that this country is the right place in which to invest. We want to justify their confidence. We can do so if we continue with the type of policies we have been pursuing over the past year or so.
I notice that no one from the Labour Benches so far today has advocated the restoration of wages councils or other artificial methods of stepping up wage levels. It is extremely important that those ideas should be dropped, and that even the threat of them should not be brandished before us. They would quickly destroy our competitive position, increase unemployment, and be extremely damaging to the economy. They are important issues upon which I shall be pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister comment.
There is a particular line of policy that I wish to press further. I believe that VAT is a bad tax. It is directly inflationary because it adds a specific amount to the cost of every product that it bites on. That is most damaging. The Government made a considerable mistake when they sought to increase VAT on, for example, domestic fuel. Although the tax has respectable European parentage, it appears to operate against the efficient working of an economy. I shall be interested to hear whether the Government intend to forbear any further increases in VAT.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to indicate that the Government realise that restraint in taxation is essential to a continuance of the process we are beginning to enjoy. Low taxes are an attraction to investment from other countries, a stimulus to enterprise, and a good encouragement to able, hard working, intelligent people to stay here and work rather than go to other countries where taxation is lower because they wish to retain a larger proportion of their considerable earnings. Some people have been induced to do that; it is an important point to bear in mind.
All such factors point to the desirability of lower taxation. One must face the fact that that calls for restraint in government expenditure. From time to time, some of us have pointed to areas in which government expenditure can and should he reduced, thus enabling taxation to be reduced. As time is short I shall refer to only one. It is legal aid. The cost of legal aid is roaring upwards despite the most gallant efforts of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to check it.
No doubt legal aid is a desirable assistance to people in certain situations. However, such a rapid increase cannot be justified. It cannot be right that taxpayers should be made to finance the litigation, in particular the civil litigation, of people of considerable wealth. Recently we have heard of a number of such people, not of British background, receiving large sums by way of legal aid to enable them to fight long and complicated actions in the British courts. I hope that we put a stop to that, thereby securing a substantial reduction in public expenditure and enabling taxation to be reduced.
If my noble friend the Minister indicates that the Government will carry on along the lines they have followed so successfully and that they will move further

1639
in those directions a great majority of Members of your Lordships' House and of the electorate will be very happy.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it is particularly appropriate that we should be discussing these matters in your Lordships' House today. At a conference in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre many people of great eminence are discussing at length the future of Britain. If press reports are to be believed, the conference is being chaired by a BBC journalist from the "Today" programme, thereby, one hopes, ensuring strict impartiality.
The Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Prior, contains the phrase,
"challenges arising from technological development".
I wish to concentrate on that during the few moments at my disposal.
The noble Lord said that progress and change in technical development is bound to continue. He spoke properly of the need for a high skill economy in this country. However, I have to say that in my opinion there is a very real danger that this country, the cradle of the great industrial revolution of the 19th century, may be left behind in the new technological revolution which is already gathering momentum and which will transform the industrial world of the 21st century.
Already, the "information super highway" has become part of the common vocabulary. Unfortunately, so far few people seem to be fully aware of the profound changes it will bring about in our lives. That may be due in part to the fact that technological change seems to spawn a large number of bewildering acronyms; for instance, CALS for continuous acquisition and lifecycle support. As president of the UK CALS Industry Council, I know that there are a few small communities of experts in government, in particular in the Ministry of Defence, and in some of the high-tech industries who are familiar with those concepts. However, for most people they bring on a numbing sense of boredom and incomprehension.
Yet behind the technical jargon some astonishing developments are taking place. Many are to do with what is arguably the single most effective instrument of wealth and power; that is, information. Already the United States Vice-President, Al Gore, has begun to speak of the dangers to democracy of the growing gap between the "information rich" and the "information poor". The United States is rapidly developing a national information infrastructure which will provide across the United States a massive network of computers, databases and consumer electronics—personal computers, television sets and so forth—which, within the foreseeable future, will put vast amounts of information at everyone's fingertips. It will change forever the way in which people live, work and relate to each other.
At the heart of the revolution lies another acronym; that is, EDI or electronic data interchange, In its simplest form, it is the transmission of structured information by means of common electronic standards.
1640
That is no less than a move towards electronic commerce, a world in which most if not all significant business and economic activity will operate in an environment dominated by information technology.
This is the new industrial revolution. Unlike the 19th century model, it will call for new dimensions of political leadership and vision. The first industrial revolution was relatively gradual in its commercial and sociological impact. The information revolution is of such a radical nature and of so accelerating a pace that it is not too extreme to say that the challenge of the 21st century will be for humanity to adapt to that technological change.
The management of such a change is a political challenge of the highest order. It is no longer merely a matter of applying a series of remedies and improvements to existing methods and cultures. It has become a matter of questioning and possibly discarding many of the assumptions on which we have hitherto conducted our businesses, industries, economies and the greater part of our lives. Furthermore—this goes back to something which the noble Lord, Lord Prior, mentioned in his admirable opening speech and is my main reason for introducing the subject—all this is becoming an essential instrument of international commerce. It is not too extreme to say—I say it from my experience of visits to the United States and Japan—that in the 21st century it will be difficult, if not impossible, for any country in the world to engage in serious technological commerce with the United States, Japan or any of the other advanced industrial societies unless they understand the principles of the new technological revolution. That will be of special importance in the export market for information systems, which is enormous. As the noble Lord, Lord Prior, mentioned, the importance of the third world can scarcely be over-estimated in that context. Perhaps I may take one example. In India, with a population today of 900 million, probably rising to well over a billion in the first quarter of the next century, the percentage of the population using information technology is likely to rise from 2 per cent. to 10 per cent. in the same time-frame. If my mathematics have not entirely deserted me, that means that some 80 million people will come on to the minor roads leading to the information super highway in the first part of the next century.
Much of this is, of course, outside the scope of government. It will be a matter for industrial and business management and ultimately for the millions of individuals who will have to make their own decisions about how to adopt and utilise the new technologies. As I mentioned, there is a very real danger that a new business and cultural elite will emerge composed of computer-literate people with access to the new information networks and the ability to exploit them. Already in informed and intelligent debate in the United States, there are apocalyptic warnings of the social perils of the emergence of a new information underclass. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester has told me that "underclass" is not a politically correct phrase to use, but whatever the words chosen, it is an imperative obligation of civilised political leadership to ensure that

1641
that dangerous schism is not allowed to happen. The information society must be the inheritance of all mankind. It is a matter of concern that that kind of understanding of the political and social implications of the new industrial revolution does not seem yet to have spread to this side of the Atlantic.
It has been said that, in politics as in industrial management, there are two categories of executive—the doorkeeper and the pathfinder. The instinctive reaction of the doorkeeper is to regard fundamental change as a threat. He sees it as his sacred duty to preserve the status quo. To be a pathfinder requires something more. It requires a readiness to take risks in embracing fundamental change. There is an urgent need now for a pathfinder approach in this country. There are signs that that is happening on a modest scale. At a recent conference in London, organised by the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee, the Minister for Trade and Technology at the Department of Trade and Industry underlined the great opportunities provided by technological developments. He emphasised the importance of the Government both as a user of information technology and as a leader in the emergence of the information society; but he made the significant admission that he was the first Minister, and, indeed, the only Minister, to be equipped to deal with electronic mail—or E mail—a communications tool which has been common in industry for almost a decade and which is regarded as normal practice in the United States and Japan. That is not exactly a shining example of a nation committed to a vision of the information society of the future.
As I am in my eleventh minute, perhaps I may conclude by asking the Minister whether he will comment on one aspect which seems to me quite significant. We read many stories in the press about hospitals which have to ring up 14 other hospitals to find emergency beds. Will the Minister tell the House why there is not a national computer database from which any hospital, merely by pressing a button, could find out how many beds are available and where they are? That has been in existence in other advanced countries for some considerable time.
I return to my immediate concern—the management of the change which is consequent on a great technological explosion. We have to accept that ever-accelerating technological change is becoming a normal feature of our lives and that it will require a fundamental reassessment of our whole cultural approach—covering organisation, administration and industrial relations—in every dimension of our national and international life. Above all, it will require imaginative and flexible leadership at every level of government, industry and society itself.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Laing of Dunphail: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated warmly on the present state of the economy. Without wishing to detract from that statement in any way—indeed, the figures published last week were quite excellent—we should be wise to remember that we have been here before with an
1642
economy growing satisfactorily, inflation under control, unemployment coming down, productivity improving and even an export-led recovery.
But looking back over three decades, the benefits achieved after much pain and anguish have been squandered time and time again for one reason or another so that we continue to fall behind our major international competitors through lack of investment in every part of our economy—in people, in infrastructure, in technology and, I think, in the discipline of our society.
I wish to make a few remarks on that scenario, and first of all, on monetary policy, which is the principal instrument for the control of inflation, together with tight controls over government spending. Having had the privilege to sit on the Court of the Bank of England for 18 years, I know how difficult it is to gauge the state of the economy at any one time and to decide whether what is happening is a trend or an aberration. The sad fact is that all too often, inflation has been let out of the box into which it had been firmly placed.
We are extremely fortunate that the present Governor has been involved with monetary policy for many years. His understanding of the situation is second to none and the Chancellor and the Governor are to be congratulated on publishing the minutes of their meetings because that ensures that whatever decision is arrived at, the debate is in the public domain. I believe that publishing the minutes will be a restraining influence on liberalising the money supply unwisely and will almost certainly lead to interest rates being controlled within a narrower band to the advantage of us all.
I turn now to manufacturing industry and investment. To put my remarks into context, perhaps I may give your Lordships some figures for manufacturing investment as a percentage of GDP. For the seven years 1985–1992, in the UK we invested 2.6 per cent.; Japan invested 6.6 per cent.; Germany invested 4 per cent.; and France invested 3.1 per cent. For the same years, our GNP grew by 15 per cent. while consumer spending rose by 23 per cent., and in 1992 had reached 62 per cent. of total activity, rising from 54 per cent. in 1976. While company earnings increased by 35 per cent., dividends increased by 100 per cent. Figures like those should concentrate the mind and chill the blood, but all too often we seem to take comfort from improvements in our investment and productivity performance without relating them to what is happening in our major competing countries.
We simply have to get over the message that we must consume less and invest more. That must be backed by a fiscal policy designed to raise the national savings rate and a return to a system of investment allowances would also be beneficial. Of course the solution does not lie only with government. Industry itself is far from blameless, and also the interaction with the City. Short-termism presents a continuing problem.
I read in a leader in the FT recently that the purpose of companies' boards was to maximise returns to their shareholders. That is all very well, but if it is achieved at the expense of training, at the expense of research and development, and at the expense of investment levels, it is seriously damaging to our future. Failure to invest

1643
sufficiently in these areas is to a large extent responsible for our dismal manufacturing performance. Government have a part to play here too by ensuring that our education system produces a generation equipped to take on, and ultimately to beat, their opposite numbers anywhere in the world.
If investment in manufacturing industry is to reach its full potential, we need a high level of leadership in industry. Leaders must lead and lead by example. I wish to quote from Viscount Slim. He said,
"Leadership is of the spirit, compounded of personality and vision; its practice is an art. Management is of the mind, more a matter of accurate calculation, of statistics, of methods, of timetables and routine; its practice is a science. Managers are necessary: leaders are essential".
I ask your Lordships' indulgence for a moment to talk about my experience in manufacturing industry. I was chief executive and/or chairman of my company, United Biscuits, for 35 years. Before that, I worked in one or other of our factories for 14 years. I believed then, as I believe now, that there is no substitute for hands-on experience of a manufacturing base in whatever industry.
During the 1980s we employed some 40,000 people, and I used to speak to 20,000 of them a year in groups of 300 or less, on all sites and on all shifts, believing that the person who called the shots should be seen and heard in person and be available to answer questions. During those talks, I might suggest a safe and sensible increase in pay for the following year. What credibility would I have had if, after whatever percentage figure I had suggested, I had taken a salary increase of double or triple that, plus stock option opportunities? Can noble Lords imagine how we would feel if we were factory floor workers and we felt compelled nowadays to accept increases of 2, 3 or 4 per cent., and our bosses took 50 or 100 per cent.? Need I say more? "Pass the port; the men have got their groundsheets." While it is meant to he an amusing phrase, it has a nasty ring about it today. A disillusioned workforce is unlikely to get the maximum return out of investment
If we abrogate leadership and become just plain greedy, we put our future in peril. Money is of course not the root of all evil but the love of money is, and that is the road too many seem to be following. Legislation is not the answer. What we require is common sense and ethical and moral leadership to replace a trend which seems to me to have become all too prevalent
We are up against many great nations but let me refer to just two—Japan and Germany. The Japanese and the Germans are not supermen and superwomen. How is it then that they have become so much more efficient than we are? The answer lies partly in their stock exchange systems. Many fewer companies in these two countries are subject to the whims of their stock exchanges and therefore can take, and do take, a much longer term view. Further, particularly in Japan, their system of education and of management and communication seems to me to be much more effective than ours
Everything I have talked about has a bearing on unemployment—the biggest problem facing the western world. Our unemployment level is currently at 8.4 per cent. That figure is bad enough, but what is worse is
1644
that over 15 per cent. of all young people of working age are unemployed. While unemployment will of course go up and down from time to time, the long-term trend—not only in this country but in Europe as a whole—is likely to rise, bringing with it serious financial and social problems. If rising unemployment is inevitable, and I rather suspect that it is, more attention should be paid to the length of working life. Is it not absurd to keep people aged 60 or over in work who, with suitable financial arrangements, would like to retire, but to deny work to school-leavers who want jobs
Nothing is likely to be more damaging for our society than unemployed youth. That is such a waste of a precious resource and it leads as well to serious and unnecessary crime. If the youth of the country were gainfully employed, I believe the crime level would fall substantially. Those of us who are 60 and over no longer rape and pillage—if we ever did—but we can still play a useful role in society, even if retired. I suggest that more thought is given to an imaginative "special offer" early retirement programme for mainly unskilled workers to put young people into jobs. The means of achieving this may initially look expensive, but nothing will be more expensive than if 15 or even 10 per cent. of our young people are without jobs. That would be a real tragedy for our country and would lead to a continuation of an unacceptably high level of crime. The answers to the opportunities I have outlined lie in our own hands. In a western world which increasingly looks short-term, let us look longer term.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, to save repetition, I wish to say how much I agree with so much of what my noble friend Lord Laing has just said. In particular, I agree with him about the need to tackle perhaps the manner in which rather than always the amount which senior leaders in industry are paid. I have always been brought up to believe that maximum opportunity tends to be matched with maximum risk. One of the things that seems to me to be wrong at the moment is that people at the top who get the maximum reward also get the maximum security. I shall not pursue that today, but I believe it is important.
I also agree with my noble friend as regards the importance of leadership in industry if we are to get our human relations into a constructive state. Like him, although in a considerably smaller company, I used, year after year, to go to different parts of factories at different shifts trying to explain in great detail to anyone who wanted to know—I was encouraged to find that, year by year, more and more people wanted to know about these things—what exactly the company was doing, and why, and what its hopes and fears were. I know that this works and I know that it pays efficiency dividends.
There is one point on which I do not agree with my noble friend, and that is in his remark that we have been here before. I do not believe that we have been here before. I know that under present procedures I must not congratulate my noble friend Lady Hogg on her maiden speech, but she made that point well. I do not believe I have ever been in this economic situation before. I do

1645
not think we have ever had quite the same combination of a decent level of growth being export-led rather than home-consumption-led, coupled with inflation that is under control, unemployment that is falling and employment that is rising, and our goods and services being so competitive in world markets. I believe that we have what in my lifetime is a unique opportunity. That is what I wish to speak about.
The more one progresses down the list of speakers in a debate such as this, the more boring it becomes for those who are still waiting to speak to hear about economic theories and policies and so forth. Therefore I wish to talk more about what I call the general political background and atmosphere which I believe are important for success. So much of the public comment on our economic position over the past few years has been obsessed with this business of waiting for the feel-good factor. I am tired of waiting for Godot and of waiting for the feel-good factor. If it came, I for one would be immensely worried because I believe that the sort of feel-good factor people are talking about is the sort of feeling one gets when one is enjoying a good dinner without regard to how one will feel the following morning.
The feel-good factor is sometimes applied to house prices. Some people say that house prices will act as a touchstone for the feel-good factor to arrive. I would be very frightened if that were the case. I was brought up to believe that the important aspect as regards property was to have price stability. I believe that that is immensely socially important. I know there are some unlucky people who, either through need or misjudgment, bought property at the tail end of the previous disastrous boom. But I believe that for society as a whole stability of property prices is of immense social and economic importance. If house prices started rising, I strongly suspect that all other prices would also rise. I do not believe that we want a property boom in this country. I appreciate the problems of the construction industry, but there are other, more constructive solutions for the industry than another property boom followed by the inevitable bust.
What makes me feel good—and I believe that it is part of the Government's job to bring it home to the country as a whole that it too should feel good—is that we are in the unique position of having established a launching pad from which we can go forward with a strong, well-guided economic expansion instead of boom and bust.
We have not reached that position by accident. We have done so as the result of a long, hard grind; a long, hard pounding as the Duke of Wellington said in another context. Unpopular policies have been pursued persistently and we are now seeing the reward, or at least the potential reward. I urge the Government to go forward from here and make it their major task of political leadership to persuade the country that we are in a good position, and then show that they are determined to exploit this opportunity and be seen to be doing so. That is an important task of political leadership. The fact that it may have what many people would regard as a surprising effect on the outcome of
1646
the next general election is beside the point for the moment but not without interest to me. We have the opportunity to do that. We need to ensure that people are made to feel good, for the right reasons and on a long-lasting basis.
In my remaining few minutes I want to outline in headline form some of the main components of the policy required for that strong, determined economic advance which I believe we can achieve and for which we have built the platform. First, I turn abroad. I urge the Government to give a high profile priority to expanding the single European market. The days of huge factories employing many thousands of people in mass production may be at an end, but access to huge markets is far from at an end. We belong to one of the biggest markets in the world, the European market. It is potentially even larger. At present we are the country in Europe with the most competitive edge in tackling and benefiting from that market. Therefore, I say to the Government, be strong and positive. We should expand and be seen to expand. We should go hell for leather within Europe. Let us be positive within Europe. Our objective should be to expand the single market which we have played a part in creating.
I believe that that would also bring political benefits, because I do not believe that as yet the country recognises the advantages. People are being made more and more aware by some of my Euro-sceptic friends of some of the dangers of the common market and European unity. Let us demonstrate the benefits so that both are visible. Everything has a plus and a minus. That is true of Europe. The benefits of the single market for this country are potentially immense if we have a Government who lead us in that direction. That could lead towards unity.
I do not think only of my own party. After all, it is true that most of my Euro-sceptic friends in my party supported Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was, when she was Prime Minister in signing the solemn declaration of, I believe, 1987 and introducing the Single European Act in, I think, 1989. They supported entering that single European market. I do not believe that they want to go back on that. It is the single market that we want to exploit. Let other matters such as whether we want a single currency or central institutions for fiscal policy and banking be decided by the market. Those are a means to an end; they are not the ends.
I believe that a single market requires some sharing of sovereignty, exchange rate policy and so on, but only for a purpose. Those are not ends in themselves. If that is better understood in the country, we might defuse some of the damaging disagreements. They are damaging not only to my party but to the prosperity of the country as a whole. I urge the Government to press for that.
Internally, let us look hard at the need to enlarge our manufacturing base, which was emphasised by my noble friend who has just spoken. I believe that one of the mistakes of the early 1980s was to underestimate the importance not only of the efficiency of our manufacturing base but the scale of that manufacturing base. We shall not take advantage of the single market unless we tackle the problems of under-investment in

1647
plant, machinery, education and training and the short-termism to which my noble friend has often referred. There is no single answer. When I was young, in industry we talked about ploughing back profits not distributing them. We have to reintroduce a positive atmosphere.
There is so much one could say. In my remaining minute I wish to refer to the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester about employment. I became involved in politics because I was at school in Westminster during the days of unemployment and I saw the hunger marchers. We cannot have a good society without it. However, there are immense structural difficulties. One has to train people in skills. I believe that if we can produce skills through training and create wealth we shall find that there is no shortage of jobs. There is a shortage of wealth to pay for those jobs which consume wealth rather than make it. I believe that there is an answer, but it is a long way down the road. It is a difficult problem which society will have great trouble in tackling.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I would not want in any way to exacerbate the differences between the noble Lord, Lord Laing, and the noble Lord who has just spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Laing, was taken to task by the noble Lord, Lord Cart of Hadley, for saying that we had not been here before; the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said that we had. I have been here before.
Looking round this House I begin to realise that, as a certain gentleman in South Africa said, at 80 you should not he messing around with politics. I am getting too old. I was born in 1915. In 1927 I began training in the building industry. Seven years later I finished my time. I can remember clearly what happened. At that stage in the development of so-called civilisation free enterprise had its way. It controlled everything. Somewhere in New York, on Wall Street, something went wrong, just as something went wrong in Hong Kong and Singapore not so long ago. The whole edifice collapsed. Along with millions of others, I was the recipient of the consequences of that collapse of private enterprise. I shall never forget it. I have been here before.
I do not want to talk about the details of our economy. I shall leave that to people who are much more learned than I am. But when somebody mentions the economy, and this debate is centred on the economy, I wonder what economy they are talking about. I am certain in my own mind that they are not talking about those 4 million people who are suffering the consequences of unemployment or the fear that they will suffer unemployment. I do not know how many people suffer from negative equity—that technical term for when people have bought a house which they now cannot afford. They are not talking about them. In this property owning democracy that we are supposed to have created those are not the people who are being referred to, because they would not listen. All that those who suffer from negative equity wish to know is how they will be able to move: if, of necessity, they have to move to obtain another job, how on earth will they get rid of the house that they have?
1648
They are not talking about 380,000 members of the populace who exist on f 1.50 an hour. Those workers do not listen to talk about the economy. Neither are they talking about the 1,140,000 who exist on £2.50 an hour. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that no one on the Labour side had spoken about restoring wages councils. I shall disappoint the noble Lord; I shall not mention wages councils either. But it is about time that someone found some system to stop the fat cats getting fatter in the City of London while other people are being starved on £1.50 or £2.50 an hour. If we talk about wages councils, yes, we want some control over income, but that control needs to be at the top end rather than the lower end. Those workers already suffer enough. I shall satisfy the noble Lord by saying, yes, I am in favour of wages councils when our society appears to depend on driving people down until others can make their millions. That is the kind of society that we have.
The issue today is whether people are right to think that the market can solve all our problems. But can it? We heard the noble Lord, Lord Laing, talk about investment overseas. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Prior, talk about money coming in from investment overseas. Some of our industry invests overseas. British Aerospace bought bargains from the Government and got into trouble; its balance sheet was not big enough to satisfy the investors. It wanted to pay more to the investors. So what did it do? It was common sense to the company: it sold off the corporate jets branch of its undertaking to the United States of America and romped in with £500 million. It was not satisfied with that and decided then to sell off Rover cars, regardless of the fact that Rover cars had become efficient—which it had. The jet aerospace factory was making money. But we should note that those people in industry are supposed to have the interests of the nation at heart.
Is it not ironic that the game which was invented in this country—it uses all the modem purchase of property in London as marks in a game—is now owned by the United States of America? Is that what is called investing money abroad; or is it just a means by which private enterprise, the market, satisfies itself in regard to dividend? Those people are not fit even to contemplate helping this country out of its difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Laing, once wrote to me, I had put down a Question asking what the Government would do to prevent the sale of the corporate aircraft division and Rover cars to foreigners. The Government's reply was, "We shall focus fiercely on the preservation of that industry". They focused fiercely. It did not do any good, of course. That industry has gone; but the Government focused fiercely. Is that not a wonderful thing? Yet some people on the Benches opposite suggest that what we need to do to tackle the economic problems is to get together, to be positive and to have a strategy. Let us see what strategy the Government have.
One of the main elements in our society is the railway system. I attended a meeting which had been postponed for a month either because the Minister could not come or the details were not available—I do not know. I asked this question: when Railtrack was sold off, who would be responsible for determining the future of our railway

1649
system. Would we have a strategy? The Minister did not understand the question; I had to repeat it. Everyone else in the room had understood the question, but the Minister either did not want to know or did not know the answer. I summed up by saying, "That means in fact that there will be no one responsible for the strategy of our railway system".
The railway system is the lifeline which determines our industrial efforts. It determined that Ford motor cars came to Merseyside in order to tackle the unemployment problem in Merseyside. The railway line between Dagenham and Speke is a continuous extension of the production lines in both factories. That was the use made of railways. Yet here we are without a strategy for railways. Here we are selling off all our assets.
I wish that I had longer in which to speak. During the debate I have learnt further about the attitudes of noble Lords. I think that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laing, should be sent to the leader of every industrial concern in this country. There were some factors in it which should make those people think—but they think only in pounds, shillings and pence. If you cut some of their veins, the stuff that came out would tinkle as it hit the floor. They cannot think beyond the question: where is the money coming from?
Let us therefore consider what we shall do with our economy. Let us take energy. If ever there was an element which required good husbandry—to be used efficiently, to be conserved and at the same time used to help our industry develop and become a world force—it is the energy that we own. And what have we done? We should ask ourselves this question. If noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber cannot answer it, they had better start thinking, because they are responsible. The newly formed gas organisation immediately began laying hundreds of miles of gas mains throughout the country. It was of no consideration to that industry that it was laying gas mains which competed with the electricity industry in Wales. It was not concerned about the long-term strategy for the use of energy. All that it knew was the more gas used, the bigger its profit.
The electricity industry is doing the same; and the situation gets worse. Manweb is the distributor of electricity in North Wales. When I walk into Mold in North Wales, what do I see? I see Norweb competing in the heartland of Manweb. Is that a common sense way to deal with our energy resources and needs? Of course, it is not.
Some noble Lords will say, "He's one of those old Labour men, one of those old people who believe in nationalisation". I do not. But let me say this. I believe in common ownership, because it is only by relating common ownership to our needs and purposes as a nation that we shall get anywhere. To rely on the market means relying on nothing.
I conclude as I began. In the 1920s I suffered the consequences of a free enterprise society where the devil takes the hindmost. In 1979, Thatcher restored that system of enterprise, and control over our energy and our nation went. This Chamber and another place are useless appendages if they believe that they can control our economy. They cannot. Private enterprise will. I
1650
make this forecast, and I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for using the word "underclass". Private enterprise has established an underclass of privation and despair here as well as throughout the United States and Russia. When people begin to realise the consequences of private ownership, they will reap the wind and we shall have an awful time. But the people suffering will not take it lightly this time, and I will be on their side. If that means that I shall be classified as a socialist or someone who believes in the public weal, then I will take it, and I do not care what any political party says about it.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Prior for bringing forward the debate at this time. When I read articles by financial commentators these days, I am reminded of the words of Gilbert which go something like this:
"Oh don't the days seem lank and long,
When all goes right and nothing goes wrong
And isn't your life extremely flat,
With nothing whatever to grumble at!"
It is true that there is now a real danger of our nation talking ourselves down, selling ourselves short and blaming everyone else—particularly the Government and faceless bureaucrats—for ills which are probably not of their making. I suppose we should ask ourselves: "Are we doing well economically or not?" It is a little like asking a friend: "How's your wife?", to which the answer is: "Compared with whom?"
Even some of the Government's fiercest critics at the moment have to concede that consistent low inflation for a period of about 18 months, manufacturing productivity increasing 4.5 per cent. on the year, export volumes increasing 13.5 per cent. and unit labour costs broadly flat, must, by anyone's measure, be good news.
I wish to say a word about small businesses and their situation. They are the seed corn of the economy, and we recognise that 96 per cent. of the United Kingdom's 2.7 million firms employ fewer than 20 people. In the depths of the recession from 1989 to 1991, firms employing fewer than 20 people created 350,000 jobs. That is quite a remarkable achievement when private sector employment was falling at the time. Of course there are failures but there are also successes. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, particularly in the last Budget, breathed new life into the ailing Business Expansion Scheme by bringing forward the Enterprise Investment Scheme. A simplified version of it and the Venture Capital Trust Scheme will bring long-term rewards, but they will take time to establish themselves.
Looking back at the introduction of the Business Expansion Scheme, I implore my noble friend on the Front Bench and his colleagues not to let bureaucracy stifle the EIS and the VCTS, as it did the BES. It is important, particularly for manufacturing industry, to ensure that capital from individuals goes back into the higher risk areas of small and medium sized firms. The only way to do that is as the Government have done: to give direct tax incentives to encourage that build-up and not leave it to the dishing out of grants or loans from the state. If individuals are given a direct interest in a

1651
firm—as I know only too well—they will continue to have a real interest and they will not mind taking the risk. We hope that they will get a reward.
I am also pleased to see and welcome the measures contained in the White Paper on competitiveness. They require government departments and public bodies to publish details of payment policy, performance and complaints procedures, so as to promote prompt payment. Big industry, big departments, big public bodies can be cruel to small firms and that must be stamped on wherever possible.
Small and medium sized firms which are engaged in export—and there are many—need support in ensuring that they can offer their goods to the developing markets, particularly the Far East. I know from my own personal experience of embassies how well they are adapting to modern days and how well they do in helping industry to sell its goods. Without selling, industry will fail. I also believe that the Government must not give up on their task of helping small and medium sized firms to go to those markets. Support is well worth while and money of that kind is well spent and can bear fruit in the future.
What would I grumble at if I were running a small business? First, I would have real anger at those who forget that we need a strong home market—by that, I mean the whole of Europe—to succeed. By all means hold fast to our nation state approach to Europe, but let those who criticise the European Union beware that they are sapping the confidence of many people in business through out the land. Opting out of Europe is not a choice.
Secondly, on a subject which has already been touched on this afternoon—share options—there must be a recognition among the management of privatised utilities which operate under powers of regulation that share option schemes or deferred incentives are focused on real enhancement of value in the company. They should, by fiscal measures, if necessary, be restrained.
Thirdly, if non-executive directors are to function properly and independently—as is their duty, despite recent European legislation allowing options for part-time board members—it is necessary that we in this country at any rate set our faces firmly against such practices as options for non-executive directors. They cannot be independent, they cannot be members of a remuneration committee, if they have a vested interest.
Above all, I think that the small businessman would say: "Let those of us who are involved in United Kingdom industry and who welcome the gradual improvement out of recession that we now see, tell armchair critics to realise that we could make faster progress if they could give a vote of confidence in the United Kingdom's recovery, rather than the opposite".
Unemployment has been mentioned this afternoon. It is a very important subject which demands a debate on its own, but it is not a United Kingdom problem only, it is also a European problem. If we look at some of our European partners, we can compare reasonably favourably with them, but that is no answer. We must go on and do better than we have already done.
1652
In conclusion, progress can only be made if the Government stick to their low inflation, low taxation policy and resist the temptation—however politically attractive—to loosen the strings.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I should like to focus briefly on the motor sport industry—a subject which is hardly ever addressed in your Lordships' House, but which is uniquely important to Britain. It is an example of what can be achieved when the Government provide the economic environment for it to flourish, We are now the world's acknowledged leader in motor sport innovation, a growth industry that last year generated more than £1 billion for Britain. Over £650 million of that was accounted for by foreign earnings. Fifty thousand people are now employed within British motor sport in small companies as well as many major corporations. Three times that number enjoy part-time employment. Yet these achievements remain largely unrecognised.
Ninety per cent. of the Indy cars that roar around America's leading circuits, and which brought Nigel Mansell the 1993 championship, are built in this country, including their Chevrolet and Mercedes engines. The Vickers subsidiary at Cosworth provided engines for five out of the nine teams in the 1994 Formula One season, holding 36 per cent. of the grid. Its Ford Zetec-R car engine powered Michael Schumacher to the world drivers' championship. This year it is supplying six teams.
All the major Formula One teams are based here in this country: Williams; Benetton; Mclaren; Jordan; Arrows; Pacific, and so on. These Formula One teams alone bring over £200 million-worth of overseas sponsorship money into Great Britain each year. Some of the world's most successful industrial corporations turn to Britain to run and build their competition cars, including Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Porsche, Ford and Yamaha. Lotus is in the forefront of composite material technology. Even that proud Italian institution, Ferrari, has moved its design and development office here; and another Formula One Italian team, Forti Corse, has just announced plans to open a research and development department in Britain, tapping into the engineering talent in motor racing's established "Silicon Valley" to the south and west of London, where there has been an explosion in specialist independent research and development houses.
The British touring car championship is an institution of which we should be proud, and has extensive television exposure overseas, including, for the first time this year, in the United States. Spectator numbers in this country have doubled in three years and British circuits are becoming overcrowded. Like football stadiums, they will need updating but expect no financial assistance from Her Majesty's Government.
Rallying is also increasing in popularity. Many British rallies use Forestry Commission roads. They contribute £750,000 per year to the commission. The RAC would like to use on a temporary and paid-up basis some of the under-used defence property. They have

1653
taken the matter up with the Ministry of Defence, and I very much hope this can be a useful source of income for it in the future.
There is concern in the industry at the increasing likelihood, nationally and internationally, of a ban on tobacco sponsorship. My own view is that the industry will have no trouble attracting non-tobacco sponsors and is well served by the Motorsport Industry Association, which works hard to promote the industry to other British industries as a viable marketing tool.
Environmentally, racing cars are being made much quieter each year. Unleaded petrol is mandatory at major British events, and the amount used is insignificant. A jumbo jet flying to Australia and back uses more fuel than the whole of British motor sport in a year.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will help to promote the industry to universities, colleges and schools in order to attract high-calibre young people to the business and technical sector of the industry. Unlike many other sports, motor sport receives not a penny in government grant. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be happy to know that I make no request for money or special favours. This industry is moved by intense competition and it expects no government assistance.
I mention the motor sport industry as an example of what is being achieved under this Government. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government can ride on its success and continue to help promote the export sales opportunity of an industry that is a credit to this country.
My noble friend Lord Prior mentioned the "feel-good factor". Last weekend, millions of Britons watching television felt good at seeing all four cars, and three out of four drivers from Britain, in the front two rows of the Brazilian Grand Prix.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Motion we are discussing, put down by the noble Lord, Lord Prior, is essentially a Conservative Motion on a Conservative afternoon. It was received—with one exception, to which I may return later—with unalloyed enthusiasm by Members opposite.
Sometimes I wondered whether I was living in the real world at all. We heard from most noble Lords (bar one) that the economic condition of the country has never been sounder. I wonder where your Lordships have been these past 16 years since the Conservative Party took office—16 years of undisputed power, undisputed majorities, nothing that Parliament could deny them on a vote, sustained mainly in financial terms by the finance capital of the United Kingdom, corporate finance, and to quite a large extent, by corporate manufacturing and service industries.
The Government have had everything, every power they wanted. Nobody could deny them it. More than that, they succeeded in their legislative programme of disarming anything they thought might be the slightest hindrance to the plans they had for the country. They speedily attacked the trade unions and took most of their powers away, leaving them virtually without real power.
1654
They have had everything—plus £100 billion worth of North Sea oil. And where have they got us? According to Members opposite we have never had such a sound state in the country. Everything is moving properly, steady as she goes.
Let us consider some of the matters that have an impact on the economy. Leaving aside the fact that at least one-third of the people in this country live below the poverty level and about 60 per cent. are distinctly disadvantaged in relation to the top 40 per cent—among whom 5 per cent. control the works—what really constitutes the economy of this country? The economy comprises the whole of its people: their activities, hopes and aspirations; their life span and their health; their working time; their ideas; their purposes; their aims—perhaps even their dreams. All these things are part of the overall economy of the country.
Let us take the issue of unemployment. I well remember the halcyon days of 1979 when unemployment stood at 1,295,000. That was bad enough. It was apparently attractive enough to be blazoned over the posters of the Conservative Party in the statement, "Labour isn't working". Unemployment has come down to nowhere near that level yet. The current figure, after all the fiddling—and if anybody wants any idea of the fiddling, they should read Alan Clark's diaries—stands at 2½; million, but on the basis of the old count, as distinct from the new figures. The real figure is some 3,400,000, if calculated on the same basis as the figures for 1979.
There are members of the Conservative Party who are unemployed. There is no question about that. The leaders enjoy a degree of leisure which among the lower orders is regarded as laziness. Unemployment for some of them, well heeled though they are, is deemed a virtue. I was amazed and a little angered by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Prior, referred to the process by which the unemployment figures had been achieved. He spoke of "weeding out". I could hardly believe my ears. Weeding out? He did not say it once; he said it three times. That, he said, was the process by which labour forces were reduced and people were discharged onto the scrapheap of unemployment. That reminds me of the days before the war, under a very similar regime, when notices outside the factories read "Hands wanted"—not the brains, just the hands. The way in which that disastrous process is regarded by some Members opposite—I do not say all Members because I have some very good friends over there—as casually "weeding out" is deeply offensive to most people. Indeed, I am sure, within the context of the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Worcester, it is repugnant to him also.
So that is their view of unemployment. But unemployment is not merely a matter of modern information technology and modern techniques displacing labour itself. That is rubbish. People do not wear computers on their heads to keep out the water. People do not consume computer tapes in substitution for a square meal. Information technology may facilitate the whole process of manufacture and distribution. It does nothing to solve the basic problems of life nor help to solve the problems of the homeless. Incidentally, a

1655
reinvigoration of the housing programme—it needs it after all these years—would, at a stroke, employ much more direct ordinary labour, help to relieve unemployment, and give a new sense of purpose and direction to people. It would also produce more houses. Those who tell me that there is not the intellect within the United Kingdom to match the needs of people through other people's labour—thus employing them and reducing unemployment—and that them is a problem beyond all solution in this modern age are talking out of the back of their heads. They know that it can be done.
Another advantage the Government claim is in overseas trade and the balance of payments. I do not know whether they read the figures which they themselves publish. There was a news release issued a few days ago about the balance of payments. It showed that far from the improvement being due to any surge in exports or limitation of imports, the greater part of it (some f I 1 billion) was due to investment income from overseas. It also showed that in the year 1994 there was still a visible trade deficit of over £10 billion. Those facts may not be fully realised.
That brings me to the whole matter of investment. British finance capital invests roughly three times as much overseas as it does in the United Kingdom. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in reply to my question the other day, boasted that we attracted so much overseas investment, particularly from Japan. He claimed that as a triumph. He might have meditated on why, in those circumstances, the main part of British corporate investment—direct investment, not portfolio—goes overseas to America and other countries. It does not go to our own country. We have to take account of that fact.
I would like to have continued in that vein, but am prevented from doing so by the remarks that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Laing of Dunphail. I should like to think that the sentiments he uttered today in his observations upon leadership and management and in his general approach to the whole subject of manufacturing industry and the future of our country as an economic entity —with which sentiments I heartily agree—would pervade the whole of the Benches opposite. I am sorry to embarrass the noble Lord by supporting him. Nevertheless, he spoke as one of the true voices of England across even the political divide.
Let nobody in the country think that anyone on this side of the House wishes to talk down our country. On the contrary, we believe in our country. Speaking personally, I believe in our country and even its administration more than I believe in the bureaucrats in Brussels.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Nickson: My Lords, there have been two fairly punchy speeches from the Benches opposite. I speak as a businessman, not as a politician and not as an economist. I also speak as a disciple and admirer of my noble friend who sits on my right. I have followed his career and tried to emulate him in various ways in the past.
1656
When I had the opportunity to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House, which was too long ago, I was given to understand that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, turned to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, as I sat down and said, "I agree with everything that he said. Why isn't he sitting on our Benches?" Perhaps later today the noble Lord may not think in quite the same terms.
I am delighted to be able to speak on the Motion introduced by my noble friend Lord Prior. I remember, though I doubt that he does, a day in 1979 when, as the newly appointed Secretary of State for Employment, he came to Glasgow to visit the CBI—I had just been appointed a very inexperienced chairman—and to visit the STUC, following his normal practice of speaking to both sides. Two years later he was kind enough to speak at my farewell dinner just after he heard that he was going as Secretary of State to Northern Ireland.
We have talked about investment and the long payback that comes from investment in infrastructure, industry and so on. In my view, some of the credit for the great progress that has been made in so many fields of British industry since 1979—not least in industrial relations—should go to the investments made by the noble Lord and the policies that he started to lay down so long ago. He might feel that that also has reference to the recent developments in Northern Ireland.
I should like to make three points. I shall pick up first the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who asked, "Where does history start?" The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to 1979 as a convenient starting date. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, went back further, into the 1920s. I want to start history in a slightly different place; namely, the 1970s. I should like to contrast many of the situations that exist today in relation to British industry with that sad decade of the 1970s.
I was a young manager in the printing industry through the 1950s and 1960s at a time when inflation averaged around 3 per cent. a year; we hardly knew what it meant. The 1970s were the saddest and most difficult decade of my life in business. We do not want to depress ourselves too much, but in terms of what has been said and the prospects that now confront us, it is reasonable to contrast that miserable decade with today. It was a decade of constant industrial strife. My noble friend Lord Prior referred to two sides of industry. Today I like to think that there are still two sides to industry; us and our competitors in other countries and in other companies, but not in most cases within British industry, which is what it meant then.
As we all remember, we saw the three-day week, the constant strikes, the conflict and the violence and hate which we deplore and now see only on the football terraces. I believe that the progress made in industrial relations through not only industrial relations law but also far better co-operation and understanding between unions and management across the country is a huge stride forward since those days of the 1970s. The 1970s brought double-digit inflation; they brought the great problem of the start of the North Sea oil revenue and the petro-pound with a high exchange rate.

1657
What did all that mean to management in the 1970s? It meant that one was almost ashamed to go abroad to sell British products because we were seen as the sick man of Europe. It was a case of apologising for quality, for broken delivery dates and an inability to satisfy one's customers. It is a different scene today. We are at least as competitive—as has been said many times—as other countries within Europe. I agree with all that was said in regard to extending the common market in relation to a free trade area, the area in which we have to compete. I am concerned that the great European market in which we all exist, through policies that may be regulatory and impose additional costs, grows too slowly and is inhibited from competing in the global markets in which we operate against the Asian tigers and those who have much faster growth rates than ourselves.
I believe that we are in a much better situation than we were in the 1970s. We heard the good news. We are no longer the sick man of Europe. We can compete. We can look with confidence over the next five years to low inflation that is under control; to a growth that is at a sustainable level; to exports and an export recovery that has been a record—the latest CBI trends disclose the highest optimism since 1977. We have positive demand and shall go on winning more business in overseas markets. Our level of days lost through strikes has never been lower. We have co-operation and a combined enthusiasm between trades unionists and managers for investment in training; for the need for long-term investment; for the need to invest in people, in their skills, technology, health and safety and equal opportunities.
I shall turn for a moment to Scotland, where I come from, and give the House more good news. Exports from Scotland, at £32,000 per employee, are better per employee than exports from the United Kingdom or Japan. As a percentage of gross domestic product exports are higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK, Germany, France, Japan and the United States. Inward investment has been criticised. It has been flowing in at two inward-investment projects a week—95 projects last year. Why? It is because of the sense of business excellence, a highly trained and willing workforce, low corporation tax and a competitive environment.
Scotland currently produces 11 per cent. of the semi-conductors in Europe; 35 per cent. of personal computers; 50 per cent. of automated telling machines and 60 per cent. of workstations, all with only 1.5 per cent. of the population. Why do the Japanese—for example, NEC, (we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, about the need for technology)—invest £530 million employing 400 employees? It is because of the high technological skills in Scotland that will take us forward. The same applies to Motorola: £50 million in East Kilbride just after assuming Digital. Our own company, Scottish Power and Hydroelectric, is about to invest £40 million. Scottish Power says that it will be burning 5 million tonnes of coal by the year 2000—twice the level of coal being burnt at the moment. I could go on. But I believe that there is more good news. In terms of technology, technology transfer from the 12
1658
Scottish universities is at a high level and we are world class in optoelectronics, parallel computing, genetics, virology, cancer research and offshore production.
I take a completely different view from those on the Benches opposite regarding the current state of the economy and the prospects for British business in the next few years. I should like to hear, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, when he comes to speak—we have heard a great deal of criticism of the Government, and the management of the economy—what those on the Benches opposite will do about interest rates. What rate of sustainable growth will they look for? How will they maintain the economy successfully? If their policy is very different: I should like to hear what it is.
I conclude in my last minute on one final note. The question of pay at senior levels was referred to. I believe that today I finish officially as chairman of the Top Salaries Review Body. I deplore, like other of my noble friends, the excessive pay rises that have occurred in private industry and particularly the private utilities. The growing gap between pay in the private and public sectors is a real problem. I hope that at some convenient date we can have a debate in this House on that subject and that I shall be able to contribute to it.
5.48 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, your Lordships will be wondering why I should speak in this debate on the economy when, as is well known, I am not an economist, I am not an industrialist and, indeed, I am not a politician—I have never been elected by anybody. However, one small aspect of the economy is of vital importance and should be debated much more deeply; that is, the establishment in the minds of the population of a philosophy of savings.
The personal wealth of its citizens is undoubtedly one of the most important factors in estimating the strength of the economy of any country. I have no regrets, therefore, about bringing this matter forward for your Lordships' attention. I owe that ethic to my noble friend Lord Vinson, who said in a recent paper that such a philosophy was and is standard in those countries where the retired population are self-sufficient. Indeed, it was standard thinking in this country in days past and forgotten, since when there has arisen a tendency for society to expect the Government to take a great deal of responsibility for its ills and its future.
Indeed, one might say that the ethos of thrift began to be eroded by the entry of the Beveridge proposals. However, before noble Lords opposite—that is, if they arc going to do so—get angry, perhaps I may hasten to say that I do not believe for a moment that those proposals had such an effect or were intended to have such an effect. Beveridge's scheme of things included thrift and personal self-help, which in those far off days were, of necessity, a consideration in our daily lives.
Nevertheless, we now have the phrase "dependency culture", which has entered the language and which speaks for itself. That has been accepted by the leader of the party opposite, who has clearly declared himself in his clarion call to support the basic tenets of the party

1659
which I support. I shall be interested to hear how he intends to put that into practice, but that is another point. The situation points to the need for a savings culture to be introduced among the population.
Despite the well recognised fact of the demographic time bomb which will occur in the next century, it is clear that there is still no convinced savings/pension philosophy on the part of the individual. Short of the odd 3 million to 5 million people who have personal pensions only, the other 20 million who are employed expect either their company and/or the state to provide for them in retirement.
We had a debate on pensions recently in which the prevention of fraud and the general democratisation of pensions was the major factor; indeed, it will be clear that anyone possessing all three provisions debated—that is, state pension, SERPS and the occupational personal pensions—will be extremely fortunate and will be anticipating with confidence the enjoyment of the fruits of his prescience and thrift. Would, indeed, that I was not one of those 20 million dependants.
This Government has been most inventive and successful in promoting the savings process which we have encouraged, if somewhat piecemeal, with PEPs, TESSAs and contracting out of SERPS. In addition, there are National Savings, insurance trusts, investment bonds and building societies which all represent very large figures. As the noble Lord, Lord Prior, said, the occupational pension funds in the City today amount to some £500 billion, while unit trusts and other savings amount to another £100 billion, the assets of the building societies in this country add up to £280 billion and the housing stock is worth £1,150 billion. Of course, that does not include the value of private estates and art collections. Some of those figures are subsumed in the £3,000 billion invested in the Stock Exchange. Therefore, we can hardly be considered to be on our uppers as a nation. Those figures show the scope for personal saving.
My point is that personal long term savings are needed to take the load off the taxpayer who is providing the state pension and off the employer whose pension provisions make a large hole in his profit and loss account. Moreover, that has a knock on effect on the funds available for capital investment and, as has been mentioned by many speakers, the latter is a vital requirement for the promotion of the economy of this country.
In that connection, perhaps I may continue to bore your Lordships on the subject of pensions. Occupational pensions only relate to some 10 million employees out of the 23 million who are employed in this country. Therefore, taking into account the self-employed, there is still at least half of the working population who will be reliant on two elements: the state and SERPS. By definition, they will not be self-sufficient.
My noble friend Lord Lawson introduced PEPs, which have been extremely successful. Indeed, anyone who managed to save the maximum amount of untaxed income for 40 years would be an extremely fortunate person. Any couple who entered into PEPs at the
1660
original level could have collected £100,000 in their pockets during the short space of time that the PEPs scheme has been operating.
That is the rub. Young couples have other priorities and are some years away from their earnings peak. Therefore, they cannot afford to save at such levels. That clearly illustrates the dilemma. While relatively small sums invested over 40 years will provide, say, one half or two-thirds from final salary, if someone has only 25 years to fund his or her pension, it becomes practically impossible unless one is extremely rich.
Can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether we can have further discussions on such a vital matter in the future? Of course, I recognise that now is not the time to bring forward specific proposals.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I have found today's debate most interesting. It has also been very interesting to note how such different views of the same situation can be held on different sides of the House. However, that all adds to the interest. My opening remarks are very similar to those of the noble Lord, Lord Prior. But I shall not omit them because I believe it to be important that they should be said; indeed, they cannot be said often enough.
In my view, there is more hope for the economy today than there has been since the end of the last war because the Government have set out to reduce inflation and to hold it down. I wish to commend the Government for the determination which they have shown.
I do not understand why there is talk of the feel good factor. It suggests that people will spend as if there is no tomorrow, such as happened in previous booms with resulting high inflation and consequent deep recession. Surely, we all have had enough of boom and recession. There is now the possibility that we can develop the economy slowly and steadily at a pace where manufacturing output will match demand and so contain inflation. That rate of development may only be about 4 per cent. per year. But, positively, we do not want people to feel good and start spending in a reckless manner. I believe that we are on course for slow, steady development and that it can continue if the Government will hold their nerve and refuse to budge for electoral reasons.
Unfortunately, confidence is not yet sufficient. We have become so used to boom and slump that it will take time for managements to feel that they can progress with long-term investment plans, investing in people or in technology rather than hoard cash against the next recession.
Investment by smaller companies has been slow. To stimulate that investment by small and medium-sized enterprises—SMEs as they are known—the CBI and other organisations have pressed for 100 per cent. depreciation on the first £200,000 of capital investment. The cost of that to government is delay in tax revenue; it is not a loss. I hope that the Government will accept that as being a sensible and prudent way to stimulate investment.

1661
I should like to draw attention to one sector of industry which cannot compete internationally. I refer to UK merchant shipbuilders. They are unable to compete not because they are now inefficient—indeed, they have become efficient—but because shipowners receive assistance to place orders in other countries which they do not receive in the UK. There is no use saying that other countries must stop giving such aid. They are determined to do so and will do so. The UK is the only country in Europe which does not understand the leverage—or "levverage" as the Americans call it—which can be obtained with quite moderate financial assistance. With such assistance, not only can shipbuilders prosper and employ more people, but the British marine equipment suppliers will prosper. They are numerous and important.
During the past year the Government have moved part way to assist. Approval has now been given to accepting up to 60 per cent. of ship value as security against first mortgage. That compares with 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. obtainable in other European countries; but at least it is an improvement on the previous 30 per cent.
Roll-over relief has now been approved for three years; but five years is really what is necessary. I hope that that can be incorporated in the next Finance Bill. It is an important matter, but costs very little. The Government have so far not agreed to roll-over relief being available to different companies within the same group. That is to ignore the reality of company structure where a holding company may have several operating companies. The Government have recently increased the credit period for soft loans from 81½ to 12 years. But the stumbling block of depreciation taxation remains and 100 per cent. capital allowances are needed by shipowners who are short of cash.
Much progress has been made, but the talks between the Department of Trade and Industry, shipbuilders, ship suppliers and the Chamber of Shipping have been in progress for three years. It cannot have taken that long to ascertain the facts and to see what should be done. The problem is that this matter is time-related. Shipbuilders in the United Kingdom are not in a good way of business. Harland and Wolff, in Belfast, is the only builder in the United Kingdom able to build large ships, but has very few orders. At present, ship tonnage on order in the United Kingdom is the lowest in Europe. The tonnage on order in Italy and Spain is approximately three times that of the UK: in Germany and Denmark it is four times. I simply do not understand why the Government cannot act more quickly and attend to matters such as these because it is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Prior, spoke at some length on labour relations. I can certainly confirm that there have been quite enormous changes in the past 20 years which have changed the whole climate of industry and manufacturing. I should like to acknowledge that during his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he did his utmost to assist that changing climate in the larger companies in Northern Ireland, including Harland and Wolff, Short's and others. Perhaps I may say that
1662
Short's is now doing very well. It has managed to change its industrial relations and work practices quite dramatically since the noble Lord's time.
I wish to refer for a few moments to the economy and manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland. In many ways we have been fortunate. The manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland came through the recession better than the rest of Great Britain. Manufacturing output in the period 1989 to 1994 increased by 9.4 per cent. compared with a decrease of 0.2 per cent. in the UK as a whole. During the past year the recovery has been felt in Northern Ireland with a growth in manufacturing output of 4.5 per cent., almost as much as that in the rest of the UK. Inward investment has continued in the past few years and that interest has certainly increased since the terrorists called off their murderous attacks on the community. The Prime Minister recently sponsored an international conference, and his interest will bear fruit and is appreciated.
The manufacturing climate has improved in Northern Ireland. Companies have worked hard to develop their marketing, to pay more attention to training and to improve quality. Eleven thousand companies in Northern Ireland have achieved the international quality standard, IS09000; more relatively than anywhere else in Europe. The work done by marketing and training agencies is showing results. That satisfactory state has been achieved during our troubles and all concerned—the Government, private enterprise and trade unions—are to be commended for working closely together.
Tourism is looking up and promises increasing employment throughout the Province, although I urge that expansion and developments are carried out in a way that is sustainable and in the interest of the Province as a whole.
Our farmers have had a relatively good year with increased income from improved market prices. Agriculture remains by far our largest single industry and is therefore very important. Now is an opportunity to rebuild fixed investment in farms and in the countryside generally. There was recently developed a Special Programme for Agricultural and Rural Development—SPARD—which received a very strong response. But unfortunately it was over-subscribed and has closed down due to a shortage of money. It would be a great pity if momentum was lost here, and I urge the Government to look at increased funding for that programme from other sources, perhaps from some of the money which is coming from the European Union.
Although any report on the Northern Ireland economy must be a good one, we are not complacent. We must try harder; and that is what is happening. As an indication that we are interested in international competitiveness, a party of businessmen from Northern Ireland is at present in Japan and the Far East. The party is led by our Minister of economic development, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, who has been leading the way for that party.
An example of private sector initiative in Northern Ireland is a group called the Northern Ireland Growth Challenge. That is a group of people, all from industry, chaired by Roy McNulty, the president of Short's, which

1663
is looking at ways in which the economy of Northern Ireland can be improved. It will be interesting to see how the Government look on the report very shortly.
My time is up. I should just like to mention that our most serious problem is long-term employment. We shall have to deal with that because we have a higher percentage of unemployed and out of work people for more than one year than any other part of the United Kingdom. That is a problem which everyone concerned will have to tackle shortly.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Prior for putting down, as he described it, an amended "anodyne Motion". It caused me some concern when I thought that I might have the temerity to speak because I could not think of anything to say that had not already been said again and again. So when I was in a rather beat-up country with nothing else to read, I went through many of the old economic debates which have taken place in the 30 years that I have been in your Lordships' House. I skimmed through them. I really believe that everything that has been said has already been said again and again, often extremely constructively, by Members of your Lordships' House. I never bother to read economic debates in another place because I do not believe that anything constructive was ever said by anyone about anything there. But that is a personal opinion.
I therefore asked myself, if so many constructive things are said in your Lordships' House about what should be done about the economy, why was everything so wrong for so long? I concluded that governments always did the right thing, but always in the wrong way at the wrong time. I reminded myself too, as I believe Edmund Burke said,
"You can never plan the future by the past".
Therefore, looking back over the past 30 years and arguing about socialist methods and capitalist methods is useless. It is better perhaps to go back and listen or read only of the dead, because the past 30 years or so are best forgotten as we made a complete muck up of everything.
Then suddenly the rallying cry goes out, "Things are good: we won a battle!" But it is an open plain and no one can see where the high ground is. No one knows what battle has been won or lost. People use the phrase, the "feel-good factor". It is interesting that we are, to the surprise of everybody except some of us, in quite a good economic position.
The first of the two issues to which I should like to refer is inflation, of which many of us had never heard and which we did not think was particularly important. We knew of the Rentenmark. Those of us who deal with certain countries will remind ourselves that yesterday the rate of inflation in the Ukraine was 9.1 per cent. in one day. Inflation is not important as long as we have stability. Exchange rates are not important as long as we have stability. If we have no stability, we end up with boom and bust, and crisis. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that exchange rates are probably too high and that you cannot have an exchange rate that is too far above
1664
the rate of inflation because, if you do not have the growth, you will ultimately cause yourself problems. We can say the same thing about currencies and talk about whether the pound is too low or too high. Actually, today it is higher against the dollar than was the case not so long ago. It is pretty low against the Swiss Franc. As we are a trading nation which imports and exports, the worry at the moment is the cost of raw materials.
The real worry to me is the erosion of the past—not of invisibles or the quick-fix of trading, but the wanton destruction of our productive capacity over time. I go back to a report in which I enjoyed being involved. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I served on the Aldington Committee which considered whether it was a good idea to manufacture and what we should do when North Sea oil ran out. We all thought that it was a good idea to manufacture. Indeed, I started my business life in manufacturing—in the asbestos industry. I always seem to be in the wrong industry at the wrong time. When I first became a Member of your Lordships' House, someone said to me, "You're not joining another declining industry!". I have learnt an enormous amount in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will remember Sam Brittan describing us as "geriatric, baked bean eating Peers". There is a lot of sense in this House, but can we do without it? I think that we could perhaps survive better, like the Italians, if we could do without government.
What has happened? We have had an export boom. For years those of us on the British Overseas Trade Board and various government advisory boards tried hard to encourage the Government to believe that exports were important. No government ever did. Indeed, I do not believe that even this Government have devoted resources to exports. They thought that exports just happened. The role of government is not to export; it is to create the climate which allows those who trade to trade. The Government have done that—whether by accident or design is a matter for historians, and history can only be written when the last member of government is dead.
It is interesting that we all have the Napoleonic complex and believe that we really were a nation of shopkeepers—with apologies to many of my noble friends—and that our economy depended on what happened in the high street. But we have wiped out the high street and put building societies there. All the comer shops disappeared. It was not shopkeeping that mattered. We then thought that it was the service industries that mattered. As somebody once said, "If we do not make anything, what do we service—other people's manufacturers?". A shake-up took place. The sudden little boom and encouragement of many years ago was followed by the sharpest increase in interest rates. That led to many new businesses being wiped out. It was harmful. It led to the destruction of capital values. It led to fear that people's assets were being wiped out. I was one of those who took the advice of my noble friend Lord Laing and thought that you should spend 25 years being trained, 25 years working for a bureaucracy and then, when you were 50, you should spend another

1665
25 years doing whatever you could as long as it was constructive, I happened to be 50 at the wrong time—and it was a destructive period.
However, we learnt one thing. We learnt what inflation was and what it was not. As has been said today, we all liked inflation a bit. It made us feel better. We could never think net. The United Kingdom is one of the few countries where people can tell you how much they are paid each year, but they do not know how much they receive net. Most people do not think net. But inflation is a net factor.
It is clever of the Government to do something that they probably did not intend. I refer to creating fear. Those on fixed incomes were fearful when interest rates went down because they had deposits. They had not understood that costs were not rising. That will take time. Perhaps it is good to have that fear because people are not spending. People with negative equity in their property or people who saw a reduction in the value of their assets also began to have a fear. In real terms, because of the increase in taxation—or rather, the net impact of taxation—disposable incomes went down. And that, combined with fear, meant a lack of propensity to spend.
In the meantime, those who found that they were up against it with no real government support—taxation on small businesses was high—had to get on and do something about it. I like to number myself among them, but humbly. We found that we were competitive again—not necessarily by going out to sell but because people around the world knew that we were competitive again and came to see us. I should declare an interest because I am the president of the British Exporters Association—unpaid, I must add. Even we are surprised at the remarkable success of our exports. It is due to the stability which has been created by the Government and to constantly low inflation, with a relatively stable exchange rate.
The position was further encouraged by the ability of many governments—this Government can take a lot of credit for this—to push the Uruguay Round and liberalise trade worldwide so that we now have relatively few trade barriers. There are still a few political trade barriers, which I am sure the skills of the Foreign Office can overcome, with countries such as Iran, Iraq, Libya and other big markets but, in general, there are no trade barriers. What does that mean? If one believes the forecasts that come out of the great institutions, it means (to everybody's surprise) that there will be substantial growth in world trade. In order for the United Kingdom to be able to maintain its current position of, say, 5 per cent. of world trade with a higher proportion of invisibles, we shall have to sell abroad a further £90 billion-worth of goods in the next five years. That is simply to maintain our position. It is possible.
However, the difficulty is that many of our exporting engineering businesses are now working at full capacity. They did not follow the old-fashioned rule that when things are really bad, you should invest because things will always get better at some point. That is why we are short of capacity. It is being made up to some extent by foreign investment in the manufacturing sector. It is
1666
genuine investment. Here again I must declare an interest because I happen to be on the board of an Italian company that bought a business over here which has done extremely well and is growing strongly. I am also involved with a German company that has done the same over time. Both are expanding their businesses over here. I have a feeling that the British are better at doing things in other people's countries while other people are better at doing certain things in our country.
Things are potentially very good. My concern is the concentration of productive resources in the great battalions. Even if the great battalions have great leaders, such as my noble friend Lord Laing and others—I should point out that many of those who sit on the third or fourth Bench back seem to come from Scotland, where we have a different culture—those big battalions still have problems with resources from time to time. They are subject constantly to the whims of stock exchanges and others worldwide. From time to time they ignore remuneration committees. I happen to serve on such a committee and I feel strongly about what has happened in the past six months.
As I have said, the potential is there, but what has happened? Perhaps I can remember my Byron:
"Society is now one polished horde,
Formed of two mighty tribes, the Bores and the Bored".

I believe that we have got bored with economic matters. I think that it would be a good idea to go back to regarding accountants, lawyers, the Treasury, politicians and civil servants as bores. If things are allowed to remain stable, I believe that we shall have a stable base for growth. But that growth and that initiative can come only from the non-government sector.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I was rather glad when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, started his speech by saying that we should be looking back to when this Government came to power in 1979. I do not think there is very much that I can add to the long list of successes there have been, which have been so well put forward by my noble friends and by noble Lords opposite. What I thought that I would do with the few minutes that I have is to talk about what I see to be the causes of the success since 1979; the risks to it, or, in the words of the Motion of my noble friend Lord Prior, "the challenges" to it; and, thirdly and perhaps presumptuously—I hope unnecessarily—I should like to rehearse some of the temptations to which another government might be subjected in the future.
First, the causes: the first cause of the success is that in 1979, I think for the first time, at any rate since the war, a government were elected who believed in capitalism and the motive forces and strengths that capitalism could unleash for economic growth. All governments since the war had been uneasy about that. They did not have the confidence. They did not believe fully in what capitalism could do.
Secondly, there is inflation. As we have heard repeatedly, inflation was a top priority. It was never taken from the top of the political priorities. The phrase once used was, "Inflation will be the judge and jury of

1667
this Government". I happen to believe that the Government—at the present time in particular—have been extremely politically courageous, because it takes political courage to do things that do not necessarily produce a political dividend. That is rather the situation at the moment: the Government have taken the steps, but they are not getting a political dividend. I should like to hope that those steps were taken because they were seen to be the rights steps and were taken out of altruism rather than for any of the old electoral reasons of trying to manipulate the economy.
Thirdly, the control of the trade unions: there have been one or two remarks in the past from the other side of the House about the trade unions. I do not believe that anyone in this country believes that the loss of power of the trade unions has been other than a good thing. It is no longer possible—I doubt whether it will be again for a very long while—for union leaders to treat their members like Gadarene swine. People will just not follow that sort of advice.
Then there has been the liberation of managements and capital by privatisation. To supply capital for industries which need it from investors is a great deal better than supplying it from taxpayers. If it is supplied from taxpayers, there is never enough of it, and then we do not have the investment in the industries concerned. The simple fact is that privatisation has been a colossal success, and that is one of the fundamental reasons why it has. I do not believe anyone can deny that the obvious examples of companies such as British Airways and British Telecom have been anything but a colossal success. The dynamic forces of entrepreneurial management have been released. The companies have been allowed to go to the market to get the capital which they were unable to get, understandably, from the Treasury.
Fifthly, we have in the past 16 years also faced up to the needs for structural adjustments to the economy and the use that industry was making of employment. We have only to look at the staggering figures for the number of people who are now not employed on the railways; now not employed digging coal out of the coal mines; now not employed in a whole host of industries from agriculture right the way through. Considering those figures, the rate of unemployment is remarkably low. I want to return to the subject of unemployment in a moment.
Sixthly, and this is very important—I do not believe that it has been mentioned today—in the context of Europe, by far the most important development since the Treaty of Rome has been the completion of the single market. That has given this country a considerable advantage. Not least, it has of course encouraged a great deal of overseas capital to come into this country. I do not mind if an industry is bought by foreigners. I do not object to that, provided the jobs remain in this country. We have only to look at the electronics industry, the motor car industry and a number of other industries where foreign capital is creating jobs, wealth and well-being for this country.
What are the risks? There is probably still some risk of the re-emergence of inflation. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about the price of bonds was
1668
an important and good one. One of the reasons why I regret the departure of Rupert Pennant-Rea from the Bank of England is that I believe that he was an immensely powerful force, reinforcing the governor's determination to control inflation as a top priority in terms of economic management. There is at the moment, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was indicating, an imbalance between bonds and equities. The return on bonds is so attractive that people are understandably reluctant to invest in equities. That reflects a lack of real confidence yet in this country that inflation has gone for ever.
One can understand that. We had colossal rates of inflation in the 1970s. We should remember how traumatically the Germans reacted after unification to worries about inflation. Their traumatic experience of inflation took place 70 years ago. So it is not surprising that we who had very high rates of inflation only 20 years ago should still remember them and not be totally convinced.
Secondly, there is a danger of a lack of competitiveness in Europe. Part of that is caused by artificial exchange rates. If we look at purchasing power parity, we will see that the Deutschmark is currently overvalued by some 50 per cent. against the American dollar; about 45 per cent. against the pound; 48 per cent. against the peseta; and over 60 per cent. against the lira. Either the Deutschmark/dollar differential will change or there will be an implosion in Europe. Something has to take the strain. The strain comes either from exchange rate changes or from unemployment. That is why I believe that exchange rate changes are much the better way. If there were to be an implosion, that would result in demands for trade barriers, which we all wish to avoid.
Thirdly, I believe that there is a real danger of the Social Chapter approach leading to less competitiveness in Europe, causing a severe and serious disadvantage to southern Europe.
There is another risk which is much longer term. It is that there will be, sooner or later—I think within the next decade—a tremendous flow of manufactured goods from China and some other countries in that part of the world as the result of the enormous investment in those countries. We in Britain at the moment have benefited greatly from overseas investment here, because Britain is seen as an attractive place in which to operate. The result of the investment in China and elsewhere will have a considerable impact. It could, in the longer term, put in question the whole GATT philosophy.
Finally, there is structural unemployment in Britain. By that I do not mean structural unemployment in industrial terms. I mean in geographical terms. I find that monthly green House of Commons publication which analyses unemployment by constituency a fascinating document. It splits levels of unemployment into 650 different packages. It is interesting that of the 25 constituencies with the highest rate of unemployment, no fewer than 15 are in London or the London area. The others are in places such as Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool. The real unemployment that we now have is geographical rather than structural in industrial terms. Although the way in which jobs have

1669
been created is truly remarkable, I deeply fear geographical pockets of high unemployment. A permanently unemployed minority may not be of great electoral importance to any party, but it is a great social danger. Anyone who read the Economist before Christmas will have seen the terrifying description of the gangs in America and what can happen if one has an alienated minority. My solution is to have some form of national service—not just military—which at least gives people a role.
Finally, there is what has been referred to a number of times: anti-social behaviour by a few people at the top of British industry. That is a deep worry. I remind your Lordships what happened when Rachman got going and the damage that that did to the whole rented sector. We do not want that happening in the future.
I shall quickly say what I believe might be the temptations to a government of another complexion. First, there will be the temptation to preserve rather than to create jobs. Secondly, there will be the temptation to trade off employment and inflation. Mr. John Prescott frequently says that he believes that higher inflation is a price well worth paying for lower unemployment. Thirdly, there will be the danger of increasing public spending beyond what can be afforded. Fourthly, there may still be the temptation to give unions a greater say in management. Fifthly, the social chapter and minimum wages would be catastrophic. Sixthly, I fear that there will be the temptation—I hope that it will be resisted but I am not confident about that—to use taxation as a means of redistributing wealth rather than collecting revenue.
Perhaps in 20 seconds I may quote from a paper recently sent to my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, who asked for the views of a large number of companies about the role of Britain in Europe. He asked whether Britain was an attractive place in which to invest. This reply comes from Mitsubishi, a company which I advise but I had absolutely nothing to do with its response to my noble and learned friend. I wish to give Mitsubishi's reasons for finding Britain an attractive country. The first is the English language. The second is the quality and flexibility of labour—that labour regulations are less onerous and the willingness of labour to work overtime and to learn new skills and so forth is greater than in other countries in Europe. The third is that employer/employee relationships tend to be more relaxed and are again facilitated by the use of English. The fourth is that the quality of local components has greatly improved in the UK. The fifth is that central and local government tend to be very welcoming. The sixth is that the quality of life for Japanese staff and their families is considered excellent. Finally, London's pre-eminent position as a financial centre will not be seriously threatened by other European cities. My Lords, I apologise for taking too long.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Prior, on introducing the debate. Unfortunately, the picture that he paints of the economy is incomplete. That is because the real world of work
1670
often bears little relation to the world of economists and accountants. That was implied by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester.
In painting a picture of the economy, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, forgot a very important and old-fashioned element of business leadership which people overlook at their peril. He forgot about MBWA. What is MBWA? It stands for management by walking about. Its purpose is to confirm that the picture drawn by accountants and economists is reflected in the real world of business. The noble Lords, Lord Laing and Lord Can, remembered the importance of that. Unfortunately, their right honourable friend Mr. Clarke, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did not. Had he done so, he would not have believed the Treasury economists who told him that there was an expanding steel plant in Consett and a nappy factory on the same site. From this side of the House your Lordships will get the complete picture because we understand that the economy needs vision as well as figures.
If noble Lords had done some MBWA recently, what would the picture look like? Perhaps I may draw it. They would find a massive sense of insecurity at all levels. They would find people working longer hours with more demands being made on their personal qualities of loyalty, honesty and integrity. They would find people having to develop better personal skills in technology, communications and education and they would find more sacrifices being made in terms of family life.
Much of that pressure and insecurity results from the necessary drive to become more competitive. In that drive to become more competitive, many full-time jobs have become part-time; many long-term jobs have become short-term contracts; and more people than ever have known a period of unemployment. That is true at all levels of industry; that is, directors, managers and workers. Indeed, in the drive for competitiveness, whole swathes of middle management have gone and that is why all the extra demands are being made on those who remain.
The way in which the Government measure the economy contributes to that sense of insecurity and unreality. They measure the growth in output but ignore the stagnation in take-home pay. In 1994, the economy grew by 3.9 per cent. but disposable income grew by 1.2 per cent. It is to be hoped that the increased cash retained by companies will be used for investment. However, the indications are that they are paying it out in dividends.
The division of this increase in disposable income has been very one-sided. Many noble Lords have pointed out that the pay of directors has risen dramatically while the pay of managers and others has hardly moved. In most industrial companies a director used to receive about four times the pay of a junior manager. Directors now receive between eight and 10 times the pay of junior managers while everybody works much harder. Perhaps the Minister will explain why high wages in the boardroom equals high productivity and why low wages on the factory floor equals high productivity.

1671
Talent needs to be rewarded in a company at whatever level it is demonstrated. That ethos exists in our best companies because they know that without it their competitiveness will wither away and that all the effort will have been for nothing. The objective is not to reduce wages to the level of those in China; the objective is to reduce unit costs to the level of those in Germany and the USA. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—I am sorry to see that he is not in the Chamber—observed how the continued deregulation of the employment market has helped to create jobs. Many of those jobs have been in low wage sectors of the economy and deregulation has done little to improve the performance of industry and wealth creation.
Noble Lords have spoken about exports and the importance of the new markets in Asia and eastern Europe. It is a combination of increased productivity and a weaker pound that is helping our exports, and of course that is to be welcomed. But it has to be sustained and the task is enormous. The recent CBI, Ernst & Young report states that the increased competitiveness of newly industrialised countries means that UK manufacturers can no longer rely on retaining the manufacture of high technology, high added-value products, and expect developing countries to take on low technology manufacturing. The report states:
"UK businesses must recognise that their fastest growing potential markets are also the biggest long-term threat to the manufacturing base".
If we are to sustain and improve our competitive position, the Government should not make the mistake of interfering in industry in the wrong places. Instead of being dogmatic about the social chapter, which virtually everyone in industry agrees contains sensible aspirations—and they are only aspirations—perhaps the Government should encourage shareholders to become more active. In order to maintain our competitiveness boards need to be challenged by shareholders and not just rubber stamped by them. Seventy-five per cent. of the shareholders are institutions which remain remote because they seek higher rewards with little risk. The institutions should be encouraged by the Government to wake up to the fact that their active participation in finding the right balance between enterprise and control is healthy and profitable for companies.
Another discovery that noble Lords would make if they practised management by walking about is why, with more than 2 million unemployed, it is so difficult to replace staff. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke about that. The reason is that there are no longer any simple jobs. Increased competitiveness means that jobs become more complex, needing better educated people to fill them. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, spoke about education in competitor countries catching up with us. Sadly, the truth is that many of those countries have overtaken us. That is why nowadays directors have to treat employees as stakeholders in order to build up their positive attitude to work, which is essential to improve competitiveness
The old adversarial relationship backed up by over 2 million unemployed no longer works. In the same way that companies are building up partnerships with their customers and suppliers in order to cut costs and
1672
become more competitive, the same principle applies to people at work. The noble Lord, Lord Laing, reminded us that leadership in management means bringing out the best in both people and in the enterprise. Nowadays, everybody in industry has to think as an owner
Thankfully, we have some wonderful companies in this country which are run in a modem and enlightened manner. The noble Lord, Lord Laing, told us about his company and I agreed with much of what he said. But perhaps I may give him a friendly warning. If he persists in his views, he is in danger, as was his right honourable friend Stephen Dorrell, when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, of receiving a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, accusing him of thinking like a socialist
But it is wrong to assume that the company of the noble Lord, Lord Laing, represents the norm. It is sobering to note that in 1993 just 12 companies accounted for 25 per cent. of our exports. The task is to bring all companies up to those standards. Best practice must be the norm in all our companies
I welcome the efforts being made by the DTI to raise standards. But that is often spoiled by the greed and opportunism, apparently condoned by the Government, of many companies, particularly the recently privatised utilities. In many cases, the need to set high benchmarks and put something back in the pot is forgotten. That is the message for management by walking about
Noble Lords opposite may interpret what I have said as the politics of envy. I wish they were right. But the rejection of social values, the lowering of standards and the excesses have gone too far. As a result, the politics of envy have become the politics of social justice
6.42 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is talking about the politics of envy. He is talking about the politics of gloom. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said and as several noble Lords have said in this debate, we have the best economic outlook for 40 or 50 years. I just hope that we do not throw it all away.
With a general election due in two years' time, the temptation for politicians to vie with each other to promise benefits which jeopardise those prospects are very great. The cry from some members of my own party for tax cuts but with no corresponding proposals for cuts in government expenditure is extremely dangerous. The Labour Party has not yet given details of how it would tackle the economy. However, it has implied that it favours high spending on health and education, to mention just two items of government expenditure. Its criticism of government policy always seems to conclude with the expression "under-funded". The expectations to which that party gives rise are even more dangerous.
I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Prior for initiating this important debate. I agree with almost everything that he said. I should like to make a few remarks about the government deficit, or PSBR, and also about taxation and the welfare state.

1673
Some people seem to think that governments can beat the economic cycle. I have not yet read a satisfactory explanation of the economic cycle but there is no doubt that it will continue and that no government has yet beaten it. It appears perfectly proper for a government to cut taxes or increase public expenditure when the economy is on the upswing of a cycle. Both have been done by governments in previous cycles. But, come the inevitable downswing, a price has to be paid.
Everything seems possible when the economy is at the top of the cycle. Tax receipts are up and expenditure on unemployment and social security payments is down. When the downturn comes, as it must, the reverse happens and a low government deficit or a surplus is turned into a large deficit. Therefore, in my view it is imperative that politicians should address those problems. Nobody has yet predicted accurately when the up-swings and down-swings will occur. Nor have economists and statisticians been able to say how deep or long each recession will be. The last recession was certainly the longest, if not the deepest, since the war. I do not remember anybody predicting that.
There is talk now by economists of a soft landing for the American economy. By that, they mean that the next recession should not be so deep. However, they cannot say for certain that that will happen. The great majority of economists will be the first to admit that the ability to predict such matters is extremely limited.
However, there is no doubt that there will be a recession—mild or deep, long or short. The Government must keep finances on a tight rein while times are good so that the deficit is sustainable in the bad times. The deficit is bound to rise in times of recession and desirable tax cuts and/or increases in public expenditure in good times must be sustainable when times are bad.
By what I have said, I do not mean that taxes can never be reduced or desirable expenditure increased. I mean that, when such matters are considered by politicians, government finances over the whole of an economic cycle should be taken into account. That has not always happened in this country in the past. I believe that my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognise that. They have both stated that they are always looking at the long-term health and prosperity of the country. I very much hope that that virtuous aim will continue.
I believe that there is a strong case for reducing income tax on lower incomes. Income tax at lower levels is a strong disincentive to extra work effort, and, indeed, for some people it is a disincentive to work at all. Reductions should take place gradually and should be balanced by equal reductions in public expenditure. The all-pervading welfare state, built up over many years, is in some instances also detrimental to people working instead of being dependent on the state. There must be an adequate safety net for those who cannot obtain work or who are unable to work due to age, disability or bringing up children on their own. However, too many people who should not be are dependent on the state. The Government have made a start in the right direction. Among other measures, disability payments will be paid in the future only to
1674
those who are unable to work because of their disability. However, a great deal should be done over the range of welfare and social service payments. More help should be given to those who really need it. It should not be spread as widely as it is now.
That raises very awkward political choices. I recognise that people do not like paying taxes which do not benefit themselves or their families. As in lowering income taxes, measures to alter welfare and social security payments should be taken gradually. They have be shown to be fair and equitable. That is no easy task. I do not advocate the methods employed by Mr. Newt Gingrich in the United States.
Above all, whatever tax and spending measures the Government introduce in the next two budgets before the general election, I very much hope that they will continue to look to the long-term health and prosperity of the country and not to short-term political popularity.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, earlier this afternoon my noble friend Lord Nickson referred to a company called NEC. I should love to carry the logo on my chest for reasons which would be familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, if he were in his place. Instead, today, I have TEC, which could be tail-end Charlie as I am the last of the Back Bench speakers. That is a position of great advantage since I have had the opportunity to listen to an outstanding debate, initiated by my noble friend Lord Prior. My noble friend Lord Selsdon, who in his Wykehamist days was Malcolm McEacharn Mitchell-Thomson, the great racquets player, referred to the fact that if one looks along, it is the Bench of Scots right the way along. It is the Scottish grit in industry that inspires me to add one or two comments to the great debate we are having. Does it cross your Lordships' minds that one particular UK industry is among the four world leaders in its field? That is, first, because of geography—we are in Europe—secondly, because of our language, which is English, and, thirdly, because of the industry's innovations in education. I shall mention five aspects of that industry.
First, we have heard a great deal—above all, from my noble friend who initiated the debate—on research and development. The industry I am talking about accounts for 33 per cent. of all industrial research and development in the United Kingdom. Secondly, 18 per cent. of its gross output is devoted to research in industry. Thirdly, four out of seven of the highest proportions of income spent on research and development by United Kingdom companies occur in this sector. Fourthly, as regards exports, £3.65 billion worth of goods were exported in 1993 by this industry. That is the latest date for which figures are available. I believe my noble friend Lord Nickson referred to a figure of £32,000 worth of exports per employee in Scotland. The particular industry I am discussing exports £45,000 worth of goods per employee. Fifthly, it has a favourable trade balance—in our favour—of nearly £1.75 billion.

1675
We have discussed everything from the politics of envy to great economic concepts, but the industry I wish to talk about is not often mentioned in such debates. I refer to the pharmaceutical, or, if you like, the medical industry. This industry, perhaps like the motor racing industry, referred to by my noble friend Lord Astor, has to cope with enormous risks. The end product will usually be experienced by men and women. However, there are other production and financial risks involved in the pharmaceutical industry.
The figures I am about to mention give some idea of the scale of the compounds which make it onto the market from the production chain. Of the one or two in 10,000 compounds that come onto the market one in seven will prove a commercial success. The sale of those products will cover all the costs that have been incurred.
The lead time for the products can run from 10 to 12 years. This industry at least is an example of manufacturers having to put on long-sighted spectacles to look into the future. Also, the cost of developing a significant modem medicine with a worldwide application can amount to up to £200 million.
Six out of 20 of the 1994 world best selling medicines were developed here in the United Kingdom. That fact is worthy of enormous praise. Why is that the case? Is it because of our science base? I say that with humility as I do not have one 0-level in science. I am, however, instructed in science every time I attend debates in your Lordships' House. Is that industry successful because it has good links with the United Kingdom universities and medical schools, as we heard last week from the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, or is it because of the links between companies and the regulatory authorities which in this industry are of crucial importance?
Is the industry successful because the regulatory framework—which is necessary in this industry—is particularly efficient in the United Kingdom? There is a body known as the EMEA, which I believe stands for the European medicines evaluation agency. That body is based in the United Kingdom. Is the industry successful because of the Medicines Control Agency in the United Kingdom? A young German pharmaceutical expert told me last night that the agency will license products as being safe for human use in one-third of the time that it takes the equivalent agency in Germany or in France to do so. He did not mention Japan, which I may discuss if I have time. That is an outstanding example of co-operation in this sector of industry.
Is the success of the industry also due to the excellent state of patent law? That will be of particular interest to my noble friend Lord Selsdon who, I believe, referred to accountants, lawyers and perhaps scientists as being bores. I fall into that category. However, 18 years ago what roused my interest and imagination in this sector of industry was having to cope with the Patents Bill. We started discussing the Bill in January and finished in July. I understand that the Bill made a significant contribution to patent law and to the protection of intellectual property in the United Kingdom.
1676
The industry I am discussing is typical of what can be achieved in the United Kingdom. Is its success due to the investment, finance and funding which are available in London? Is its success due to the fact that the financial sector in London, let alone in Edinburgh or in Glasgow—I look with deference to my noble friend—is able to encourage longer term investment in the industry? One might think that medicines and pills constitute a relatively simple aspect of science. However, the industry is not standing still. It is exploding in two, or even three, dimensions. Thirty per cent. of European biotechnology companies are situated in the United Kingdom, and a good few of them are in Scotland.
A report by Arthur Andersen suggests that turnover in biotechnology has doubled in the United Kingdom in four years. Ernst & Young produced a report covering Europe which suggests that by the year 2000 the market for biotechnology will have multiplied up to 15 times. It is obviously starting from a fairly low base but the report estimates—I am talking about staid, boring, stolid, even Scottish firms of accountants—that this process may create up to 2 million new jobs in Europe; that is, in the 15 member states and perhaps in Switzerland too. It is up to the industry and all of us to ensure that a good proportion of those jobs come to the United Kingdom and stay here.
Is the success of the industry due to the fact that the United Kingdom is an excellent export base? In that regard one needs to consider Japanese companies. I have considered three Japanese motor companies—Nissan, Toyota and Honda —which have come to the United Kingdom and have had outstanding success. That point was made earlier in the debate. NEC is a major investor in Livingston in Scotland. I believe that this success story is due in no small respect to the constant drive to encourage inward investment. I thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who is to reply to the debate, for all the efforts that his department is making in that regard. I also congratulate the right honourable Member who represents Chippenham—the Earl of Kilmorey—who is so well known to my noble friend Lord Prior, for all he is doing to encourage inward investment and trade.
I mentioned Japan. Just before I entered your Lordships' House today I was told that the majority of new medical pharmaceutical patents registered last year were registered by Japanese scientists and Japanese companies. That has not been the case hitherto, They are catching up in an area where United Kingdom medicine and United Kingdom industry are pre-eminent. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend will say as regards what the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry can do to assist us in maintaining our lead.
I thank my noble friend Lord Prior for giving us the opportunity to discuss the economy and industry and the great success of United Kingdom Limited. My noble friend has lost none of his trenchancy of 19 years ago when he came to Scotland. He was not exactly the colour that he is now! That was thanks to a traumatic journey from Glasgow where he had been working with my noble friend Lord Laing. Eleven years ago my noble friend, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, gave

1677
me excellent tuition on how to co-ordinate government, and on what the Department of Trade and Industry can do to promote the economy and to foster success. I thank my noble friend for initiating the debate and I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say.
6.59 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Prior, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important subject today and for demonstrating something of the more acceptable face of Conservatism. I could not but feel how different things might have been, politically and economically, if the noble Lord had stayed in his distinguished position in the Cabinet, or indeed if he had occupied an even more distinguished position. What a loss it has been in other ways too—although your Lordships' House has gained from the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Prior.
The noble Lord set the tone for the debate. It could have been acrimonious and extremely controversial. Of course he raised controversial points, but he also made it possible to have a degree of consensus across the House, which on a subject of this kind is of the greatest importance. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, followed the lead in his own inimitable style. He talked about "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" until I was not quite sure whether he was left-handed or right-handed, or both. At least he showed that he was not in a confrontational mood.
The noble Lord, Lord Prior, emphasised a point on which I believe we can all agree. He said that this country has suffered for far too long from short-termism (I hate these cliché phrases but in the time allowed it is probably the best phrase to use) rather than adopting a long-term view. Translated, that means that we should put far more into investment and far less into current consumption.
Putting far less into current consumption means some very unpopular choices. It means that dividends should be less high in the interests of retaining profits. The good old companies with which many of us have been associated in one way or another were built up through the reinvestment of profits in their own businesses. There are, of course, also many other approaches. The high value placed on investment as distinct from consumption is an attitude we urgently need to recapture. I doubt whether there will be any disagreement on either side of the House about that.
Of course, people have to accept limits on the extent to which their living standards can rise. But surely, given a good explanation, people can understand that investment will provide a more secure future for themselves while they are working and in retirement and for their children. That is something which is devoutly to be wished. It would be far better than a quick buck now which can only lead to a much less satisfactory situation later.
There was another note which the noble Lord struck so typically, as I remember from the days when he was deeply involved in industrial relations. He had studied
1678
the industrial relations scene with great assiduity. He stressed the need for partnership. Here again, he met with agreement on all sides of the House. There is a need for partnership between the private sector and the public sector, partnership in investment and partnership throughout places of work.
Over the years the Conservative Government have taken great credit for the undermining of the trade union movement. I recognise that there was a need for changes in the trade union movement. I believe that there are people on the Front Bench of the Labour Party who, although they would not say so outright, agree. Some changes were necessary. But, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Prior, agrees, one cannot have that partnership and the rebuilding that we need in British industry unless there is collaboration between employers and people working at all levels throughout the organisation. I am not sure what the new Labour Party means, but on these Benches we welcome the new trade unionism under John Monks. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, supports the new trade unionism. I see him nodding. I thought that he was asleep, but he heard me, and he nodded his approval of the new trade unionism.
By striking those two notes, the noble Lord made it possible to have a far more co-operative debate than might otherwise have been the case. Probably most of us would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai—I was about to say my noble friend—when he said let us hear no more about the "feel-good factor". The "feel-good factor" is another of those revolting "sound bites" with which we are all expected to live. They do the greatest possible damage to consideration of political issues in this country. If we could ban "sound bites" for good we would get on a great deal better.
All speakers in today's debate recognise that we are up against severe challenges. The three I wish to pick out as of the greatest importance are the challenge of the global economy, the challenge of the new technology and the challenge of unemployment. They are interrelated. One cannot separate one from the other. They are challenges, but they are also opportunities.
I turn first to the challenge of the global economy. The countries of the Pacific Rim are growing at a tremendous rate. China hardly bears thinking about. It is very difficult to get one's mind round the changes that are taking place in the huge landmass which is China, with its millions of people. They arc people with old traditions and great skills and with a capacity for hard work and sacrifice. They will be extremely difficult competitors. But there will also be enormous markets. We have to see China as a market as well as a challenge.
The same applies to new technology. Of course new technology is shattering a great many old jobs, but it is creating a great many new jobs. It is creating new jobs in a way which can rescue communities throughout the United Kingdom. A few months ago I had the opportunity to attend a conference in Berlin on the technological superhighway. At that conference there were trade unionists from the more remote parts of Scotland. They said that if only we could get the superhighway working we could salvage communities in the Western Isles and the Highlands, where work is

1679
declining and has been disappearing over a long period. The new technology makes it possible to take work to those areas in a quite different way. We have to embrace that new technology with both hands. I must say, I am thankful that I am beyond the age when I have to embrace it, because I find it totally incomprehensible. However, I accept that that is the way ahead for the future. We have to brace ourselves and train ourselves to adopt it.
Finally, there is the question of unemployment. We all know that it is a hideous cancer in the body politic. Somehow or other we have to cut it out. We must not pretend that it will be in the least easy. We have neglected for far too long the activities which are essential to having the full employment that we all want to see. Of course we agree with what has been said from the Labour Front Bench today, will be said again before the debate is over and will certainly be repeated in the future. We too want a high skill, high wage labour force. However, wanting it is one thing, achieving it is altogether another. We have neglected the development of our labour force for so long that it will not be easy to achieve.
I have previously reminded your Lordships that at the end of the 1970s, before the much maligned Youth Training Scheme—although it had many weaknesses—came into being, and after the Labour Party had had many years to do something about the problem, 40 per cent. of our school leavers went either into unemployment or a job with no training. The comparable figure in France was 19 per cent. and in Germany it was 9 per cent. That 40 per cent. now forms the bulk of our labour force. That was 16 years ago, so those people are now in their 30s. All that talent has been wasted. If one can train 91 per cent. of young Germans, one can train 91 per cent. of young Britons. We did not do so and it will be a long haul before we can make up that deficiency.
We do not help the situation by pretending that we can wave a wand and have a high wage, high skill economy overnight. We cannot. It will take a very long time, a great deal of effort and a large amount of money to achieve that. Everyone is talking about the investment that we need; I do not need to emphasise it. We need investment in infrastructure and in industry but, above all, in people. I would put nothing so high as the need to invest in people. Such investment may require sacrifices—by not putting money into other areas—in order to put the great deal of money needed into education and training. Education is as important, if not more important, than training. We have to be able to be flexible. No job lasts for a lifetime, or even a decade, without learning some new skill with which to perform it. The only people who can change and have the flexibility to meet the needs of the modern economy are those who have received a good, basic education on which to build. That is what we have not given them.
We all know where we wish to go. We want this high skill, high wage economy. But we have to he honest in recognising that we are a long way from it. The Labour Party will do itself and no one else any favour if it pretends that it can achieve that aim by good wishes and waving a wand. It is not impossible to put across to the
1680
country that we need investment and that we have to spend money on it. If one wants a decent society, one has to pay for it. That means that we cannot just gain easy political advantage by tax cuts. I do not say that we have to put taxes up, but we may have to. I believe that you can sell that to the British public if you tell them why you are doing it.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, for introducing an interesting debate. It has enabled your Lordships' House to enjoy an excellent maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg. An intellect as sharp as hers is a real asset to your Lordships' House. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing more from her in the future.
Three questions have dominated our debate. The first relates to what is actually happening to the British economy. Has there been some sea change in the past two or three years which distinguishes today's economic performance from the dismal record of the 12 years which preceded it, in which the trend rate of growth was no higher than the rate of growth attained in the difficult decade of the 1970s, to which the noble Lords, Lord Nickson and Lord Marlesford, referred in such colourful terms? Are the optimists today making the trivial error of confusing performance in a cyclical upswing with a long-term trend?
The second question relates to whether there has been a change in economic policy so that any change in economic performance, if there has been change, could be credited to the Government. After 12 years of boom and bust, during which economic policy swung from the savage stagflation of 1980 to 1982, which saw the demise of a fifth of Britain's manufacturing industry, to the consumer boom of 1986 to 1989, which saw the accumulation of unprecedented external and fiscal deficits and precipitated the second great Tory recession of 1990 to 1992, is there today a new idea? What are the new policies, and can we place confidence in them?
The third question has surfaced in a rather oblique manner. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, referred to the paradoxically benign effect of the absence of the feel-good factor and concerns about the globalisation of the world economy. He made anxious references to the impact of new technologies. In all those references there has been the implicit question: what should be the long-term objectives of economic policy in Britain today?
Let me deal with the first question. What is actually happening? There is increase in output. That is most welcome, but it is unremarkable. Last year the British economy grew by a little under 4 per cent. That is not bad for a recovery year but not particularly good in the context of periods of recovery. There has been a fall in those drawing unemployment benefit. That is most welcome to the extent that it represents a fall in unemployment. But, again, the fall has been unremarkable compared with earlier recoveries.
The key question is this. Can the fall in unemployment be sustained? Does the Minister agree, for example, with Professor Alan Budd, the

1681
Government's Chief Economic Adviser, who argued to the Treasury Select Committee in another place that unemployment cannot fall below 8 per cent. without an upsurge in inflationary pressure? That view of the Government's Chief Economic Adviser was echoed in a speech last November by the Governor of the Bank of England, who assured the markets that any fall in unemployment below what he defined to be the structural limit of 8 per cent. would be answered by sharp increases in interest rates. Since the Treasury seems to agree with the Bank of England, it would be helpful to know whether the noble Lord agrees that unemployment cannot fall below 8 per cent. without an upsurge in inflation.
Of course, the great difference in the current recovery is that the increase in output and the fall in unemployment have been led primarily by growing exports. That is entirely to be welcomed. It should not be overstated, however. Exports grew by 8 per cent. in 1994. That was slightly less than average export growth in the European Union as a whole and about the same as export growth in the United States. Interestingly enough, it was also about the same as export growth in Western Germany, even though the West German currency has been sharply revalued against other currencies in the G7. In other words, our share of world exports has stayed about the same, as my noble friend Lord Peston pointed out.
Nonetheless, an economic recovery pulled along primarily by exports, with domestic consumption growing more slowly than total output, is a welcome phenomenon. The Achilles' heel of the entire process—it has been rather neglected in the debate today—is the very low level of investment. There has been an upturn in manufacturing investment in the final half of the year; and that is very welcome. But that still leaves manufacturing investment at a level 20 per cent. below the fourth quarter of 1989. That is what is happening. There is a reduction in unemployment and an upturn led most desirably by increases in exports.
The second question relates to what extent that combination of events is attributable to the policies of Her Majesty's Government. On policy, I suppose that three positions are possible. The first is that the policy is a seamless web and has not changed since 1979. That is difficult to believe. It is difficult to believe that somehow a decade of under-investment in capacity and in people, with falling R&D and decaying infrastructure, would suddenly produce that upsurge in economic performance. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, told the Select Committee on Employment in another place just two years ago that so much of manufacturing has disappeared that everything now has to be sourced from abroad. The second possibility is that Conservative economic policy is just a broken watch which in the past two years just happens to have been telling the right time. The third is that there have been some significant policy shifts in the past three years and that those shifts are the key to improved economic performance.
There is surely some truth in that third explanation, because economic policy over the past few years has undergone important changes, and even though a
1682
disturbing amount of policy seems to be the same old negative stuff which brought about the last two recessions, it is worth examining the new elements to see whether they contain something hopeful for the future.
First, there has been the policy—perhaps the accident—of devaluing the pound. Noble Lords should be wary of arguing that that has brought us greater competitiveness in export markets. As recent figures have shown, UK export prices in foreign currencies have not fallen. Instead, exporters have taken advantage of devaluation to raise prices in terms of sterling, to increase sharply their sterling profits and to repair their tattered balance sheets. That is perhaps one of the explanations of our failure to increase our share of world trade. Devaluation has helped to keep import growth down. However, towards the end of the year imports have started to show their old threatening resilience. Devaluation has enormously helped the balance of payments overall since it has produced a substantial improvement in the sterling value of overseas invisible earnings, which in terms of foreign currency have stayed just the same. The devaluation has improved their sterling value.
Policy change number one has been devaluation. Policy change number two has been a sharp increase in taxation. That increase has been an important component in determining the shape of the recovery. It is one of the reasons why consumption has not grown as fast as GDP and we have not had a repeat of the consumption booms of the 1980s. The increase in taxation has been the price that the British people have had to pay to correct the excess of the 1980s when the share of consumption in GDP rose to historically unprecedented levels.
The third element of policy which has changed has been the insecurity, negative equity and general gloom in the housing market which have also been important elements in keeping consumption growth down. The housing market was a major force behind the 1980s consumer boom. Let us give credit where it is due: the failure of the housing market to recover has been due to the Government's increase in taxation of home-owners, as mortgage interest tax relief has been cut, and to taxes imposed on insurance and heating.
It is not really an element of policy, but the fourth component of the recovery has been the fall in world commodity prices, which fell by 2.3 per cent. in 1992 and 9.4 per cent. in 1993. That drew the inflationary sting out of the devaluation. That element has, however, turned around in 1994, with commodity prices rising rather sharply.
That has been the policy mix—devaluation, increased taxation, insecurity in the housing market and falling world commodity prices—which has brought about the "success". Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the policy will continue. Will the Government devalue further? Will taxes go up further? Is insecurity to be maintained in the housing market?
That brings me to my third question. What should be the objectives of economic policy? As several noble Lords have commented, we live in an era of rapid economic change in which the structure and content of

1683
production, patterns of trade and patterns of employment are being transformed within the context of an increasingly global economy. It is dealing with that problem which should be the central concern of economic policy today—the concern but not the objective.
The objective of economic policy should be the prosperity, comfort and well-being of the British people. There can be no doubt that the Government's economic policies have led to a serious deterioration in the comfort and well-being of the British people. People today are more insecure, more fearful of their economic future than at any time since the war. That insecurity is the direct outcome of one of the Government's core policies—a policy which, as the Government see it, increases the flexibility of the labour market. That policy is the means by which the Government have deliberately sought to reduce security of employment. Unemployment, as the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
"is a price well worth paying".
The Government have deliberately sought to cut the wages of the lowest paid by abolishing the wages councils. They have presided over the biggest increase in inequality ever suffered in this country in modern times. All that has been in the name of flexibility and competitiveness.
The tragedy of the labour market policy is that it will not work. In the global economy of mobile capital, mobile production and therefore mobile jobs, our only fundamental national assets are the skills and talents of our people. If they are to be truly flexible in their response to the challenges of the global economy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, our people must be very well educated and capable of adapting to new challenges and learning new skills. They must be confident and keen to take risks.
It is not the kind of labour force which is created by insecurity and inequality, which are the keynotes of the Government's labour market policy. A truly flexible, self-confident labour force will be created in an economy in which investment in high quality education, training and re-training are available to all. In industry there must be a culture of investment and of commitment to compete on the basis of having the superior technology, the best R&D, the most advanced design.
That commitment must be fostered by a government who also take a long-term view and who stimulate investment in a high quality infrastructure without which private industry cannot operate effectively. It is that long-term commitment which is notably missing in the Government's industrial policy. They are more concerned with privatising British Rail than building a new high speed link through the Channel Tunnel, not only to London but to all the major industrial centres in this country.
Nothing could be more depressing than the statement by the President of the Board of Trade that the privatisation of the Post Office is the most important objective of his entire political career—not the growth of a manufacturing industry which could take on the industrial strength of Germany or Japan; not the
1684
encouragement of investment in high technology which could place Britain at the forefront of modern information technology; not the encouragement of high quality research and design, which are the basis of competitive success today. It is none of those things. For the President of the Board of Trade, the privatisation of the Post Office is the main objective.
That sentiment is an indication of the central failing of the Government's economic policy which suggests that the current favourable combination of macro-economic circumstances will be frittered away. That sentiment of the President of the Board of Trade defines the fundamental difference between the economic philosophy and the economic policies of the current Government and the economic philosophy and the policies of the government which the Labour Party will form at some time in the next two years.
7.26 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Prior for introducing this important debate. It has been notable for many things, the most important of which was the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Hogg. It was knowledgeable, professional, understandable and brief; it was also from an economist. That is a remarkable attribute. I suspect it must have been daunting for her not only to have to address your Lordships but also to address her noble kinsman. In less parliamentary circles, one would call him her father. Doubtless she has had plenty of experience and example.
There have been many important speeches and I shall resist trying to answer the rather trivial party political remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, at the end of his speech. He referred to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade but I believe that beyond anyone else in the Department of Trade and Industry my right honourable friend has done well for British exports and British business during his tenure of office.
I was also grateful to my noble friend Lord Nickson for an interesting speech in which he drew attention to many points. I thought that the speech by my noble friend Lord Prior was a big one, full of understanding and experience. He made some trenchant points and concluded by saying that it was time to put the record straight. He said that this House was perhaps the best and only place capable of doing so. He was right. He set an example which your Lordships have followed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, he did that in a remarkably uncontroversial way, despite the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. It is a subject which could have drawn some controversy and it is correct to say, as the noble Baroness did, that the problem is far from easy. All any government can do—and it does not matter whether it is this Government or the one which the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, conjures up in his imagination and dreams—is to do the best they can in the circumstances in which they find themselves. That is never easy.

1685
Vast changes are taking place in the world around us. Changes are an inescapable part of life and living. They may be uncomfortable, but they provide huge opportunities. I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, which was characteristically unusual and far-seeing. The noble Lord referred to the new technological revolution and those horrible acronyms that I, too, loathe, which, he said, numbed people. He said that people do not realise how much the new technological revolution will change their lives, whether they like it or not. He is quite correct.
Changes in the way in which we work—even in the way in which we think about work—are being forced upon us. Long-held beliefs and certainties are being challenged each day by new technologies and by competition from different parts of the globe. We often—and it is only natural—struggle to hang on to what we know, because that is where our experience lies. But one should never forget that the qualities which in others we call obstinacy and stubbornness, when found in ourselves, we call knowledge and experience.
There is nothing new in having to change. Technological advance and trade have always been the engines of prosperity. Who would have imagined 50 years ago, in the age of the Spitfire, that flights into space would in the future hardly be newsworthy; that the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica could fit on to a single microchip; or that you would be able to put a document in a machine, press a button, and it would appear almost instantaneously at the other end of the world? These are hugely exciting times.
The worst thing a government—or a business for that matter—can do in the face of changes like this is to try to dig in to preserve the practices of the present; to slow down the introduction of new technology; or to stifle new competitive forces by resorting to subsidies, protectionist barriers or overbearing regulation. What we have to do is to lock into the forces of change, to take advantage of them and ensure that our businesses are able to adapt to change.
I remember somebody once saying of industry, "Don't worry about making your products redundant, because if you don't, somebody else will". Innovation—the successful exploitation of new ideas—is crucial to the future success of this country. We always think that big firms determine the success of the country. But so do small firms. Of the nearly 3 million firms which trade in the United Kingdom today, 96 per cent. employ fewer than 20 people. They are a vital source of new ideas, new products and, most importantly, new jobs.
I was glad that my noble friend Lord Sanderson referred to the fact that it was small businesses that created 350,000 jobs, and were doing so when private sector employment was in fact falling. I do not expect that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, would have liked that, but it is a fact. I am sure that a lot of small businesses are involved in the motor racing industry, to which my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever referred. I am glad that he drew our attention to it.
It is in order to help such people that we are setting up Business Links, to provide a network throughout the country where a businessman can go to a single place
1686
in order to get help and advice on setting up a business; on how to design; on how to export; or on which consultant he should seek.
Britain is first and foremost a trading nation. That is why it is so important that British business should succeed. My noble friend Lord Selsdon said that we are having an export boom. My noble friend is right. We now export more per head than does either Japan or the United States. Our exports are becoming increasingly high-tech. Between 1970 and 1992, the share of high technology industries in our total manufacturing exports rose from 17 per cent. to 31 per cent.—higher than in Germany, France or Italy.
For the first time in 10 years the current account—as a number of noble Lords said—was almost balanced. That compares with a deficit of nearly £12,000 million in 1993. What is more, the current account is on an improving trend, with the second half of 1994 showing a surplus of £2,000 million. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. There can be no quick fixes. What one has to do is try to get constant interest rates and constant stability, and thereby constant growth and success.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Earl give way?
Earl Ferrers: I would rather not. The debate is time limited and the noble Lord did overshoot his own time—
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I shall be very quick. The noble Earl just commented on the improvements in the balance of payments. Will he confirm that the trend of the balance of trade, and also of the balance of trade in services, is adverse at the moment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the point that I was trying to make—which seems to be quite hard to get into the noble Lord's head, because he does not seem to like facts—is that the current account is almost balanced, and that is a very unusual state of affairs.
We hear a lot about the apparent threat which is posed by the rapidly growing economies of South-East Asia. I do not take that view. The progress has certainly been startling. China has managed to double its real income per head in 10 years. Thailand took only eight. These growing markets mean growing markets for our exports. I am not very good at statistics, but I remember the United Nations saying in 1960 that there were 3,000 million people in the world, and that by the year 2000 that would have doubled to 6,000 million. That is only five years away, and it looks as though we are likely to overshoot the prediction.
Despite the difficulties of feeding this huge increase in population, these people, as their standards rise—and they are rising—are becoming consumers and customers. According to the International Monetary Fund, the South-East Asian export market tripled in size in the 10 years between 1982 and 1993. United Kingdom exports to the region grew even faster, outpacing both German and French exports. The value of United Kingdom exports to the Philippines grew by over 150 per cent; by over 200 per cent. to Singapore; by over 300 per cent. to South Korea; and by nearly 450 per cent. to Thailand.

1687
My noble friend Lord Prior said that these were opportunities to take part in infrastructure projects. He is right. I gather that, in the Far East, one trillion dollars is to be spent on infrastructure. If noble Lords are not quite certain what one trillion dollars is, it is 1,000 billion dollars. That is quite an amount. One merely has to think of the opportunities that are there for the taking. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston: China will become a very important and growing market.
But our success is not confined to the Far Eastern markets. I agree with my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley. The3re are so many opportunities in Europe as well. In the three months to November we sold more than £1,000 million of computer hardware to the rest of the European Community, which was an increase of nearly 50 per cent. on a year earlier. Over the same period we sold over £600 million-worth of medical equipment and pharmaceuticals—which will please my noble friend Lord Lyell—to the rest of the European Community. That was an increase of 26 per cent. on a year earlier. All that is good news. But many more United Kingdom firms could be doing more to export. The Institute of Exports estimates that only around 100,000 of the nearly 3 million United Kingdom companies are exporting.
The Government have a part to play in all this. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Prior said that it was important for Ministers to go abroad. Last year government Ministers from 14 departments undertook trade missions to over 50 countries, often accompanied by business people, in order to encourage British business to participate in those parts of the world.
I was grateful, too, for the appreciation that was expressed by my noble friends Lord Prior and Lord Sanderson, and by others, for the work that is being done in embassies abroad. There has been a tremendous change over the past five years or so to make them much more commercially orientated. And I agree that opting out of Europe is not an option.
Our success is increasingly being recognised across the world. Among other things, due to our not signing up to the Social Chapter, non-wage labour costs in the United Kingdom are among the lowest both in the G7 countries and in the European Community. That is why we are seeing French and German companies investing in the United Kingdom. I agree with my noble friend Lord Nickson that it is because the United Kingdom is providing a better climate for them than that which they have on the Continent.
Of all the stock of investment from Japan into Europe, 40 per cent. has come to the United Kingdom. Why? Because, as my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Marlesford said, in the eyes of the Japanese we are the best European country in which to invest. Of all the stock of investment from the United States into Europe, 43 per cent. has come to the United Kingdom. Why?—because in their eyes we are the best country in Europe in which to invest.
Recently, Deutsche Bank decided to move its international business from Frankfurt to the City of London. Why? Because in its eyes the City of London is the epicentre of financial activity in the world.
1688
Only two weeks ago Toyota announced a £200 million investment in Derbyshire, which is expected to create 1,000 new jobs. That follows the announcement last October of a £400 million investment by Samsung in the north east. I hope that that does not distress the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, too much. But this will. The past president of the European Commission, M. Delors, said recently, "Britain is a paradise for investors". We should all take great pride in that.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, does not like investment overseas. He seems to feel that it is a waste of our money if we invest overseas. Let me tell him that our outward investment from the United Kingdom was £20,000 million in 1994 but our fixed investment in the United Kingdom was £100,000 million. That is five times as much.
What prominence in the media is given to the remarkable standing that we enjoy throughout the world? It seems to take fourth place to the denigration of people and institutions which appears to be the current stock in trade and the cause of anxiety to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Yet it is good news, and we ought to be proud of it. There is every reason to be proud of it.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, referred to Northern Ireland. Let us have a look at that. For the first time in 25 years Northern Ireland is free of fighting. That is an astonishing achievement. What has happened? The Northern Ireland Tourist Board's offices throughout the world have been overwhelmed with queries: 20,000 in December alone. In the year to November 1994, the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland landed seven major new inward investment projects estimated at over £250 million and producing up to 1,600 jobs. Unemployment is now at a 13-year low and employment at an all-time high. That is an astonishing achievement. Let us hope that the quest for peace continues and is successful.
We should take more pride in our country, especially when there is so much to be proud of. I agree with my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley that Her Majesty's Government should make people feel good and feel proud. I simply say that I am doing my best. I agree with my noble friend Lord Sanderson that it is so much better if you get a vote of confidence in United Kingdom industry when it is doing so well. He is so right.
Recession scythes through people and businesses in a devastating and indiscriminate manner. We have been through a bad time. So have others. But we are out of the recession, even though the feel good factor, as my noble friend Lord Prior said, seems so elusive to many; and he went on to explain why that was so. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, does not like the expression "feel good factor". Nor do I. She does not like the word "soundbite". Nor do I. But, strangely, although it was quite unnecessary for her to use the word, she nevertheless did so. That just shows the way we get used to using things we do not like. I do not know exactly what it means.

1689
It is neither technological advance nor trade which causes unemployment. It is the failure to foresee what will happen in the future and the inability to adapt in advance to change which lead to jobs being lost. Adapting is not always easy. That is why a flexible labour market is so important.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says that the United Kingdom now has one of the most flexible labour markets within the OECD. Our determination to modernise industrial relations has had, as my noble friend Lord Prior said, spectacular results. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, complained that the trade unions had been denuded of their powers. In contrast, my noble friend Lord Nickson reminded us of the days of shame, which are no longer with us. But we must remember that less than half the workforce now has its pay determined by collective bargaining. The number of days lost to industrial disputes in 1994 was less than 1 per cent. of what it was in 1979. That is the lowest level since records began over 100 years ago.
The fact is—the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, does not seem to realise it—that jobs are created by demand and industry reacting to, and even creating, demand, not by governments. All the public works we want to see can only come if we can afford them and make our economy and business successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, if I may say so, made a bizarre speech, peculiar to himself. He showed that some members of the Labour Party have not moved an inch in the last 50 years and that he is one of them. He complained about the abolition of the wages councils. So did the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. But those people whose wages were governed by wages councils in 1993 and who did not change jobs enjoyed an average wage increase of 6.7 per cent. in 1994. How's that for doing away with a wages council which is supposed to ruin the lives and standards of living of people at the lowest end of the scale?
One merely has to look at what privatisation has done to the economy and the companies concerned. Britain led the way. Other countries have followed. In 1979, nationalised industries cost the taxpayer £50 million per week. Privatised industries now return £50 million per week to the Exchequer through taxes on the profits they have earned. In 1979 it took 13 man-hours to produce a tonne of steel. Now it takes less than four hours. British Steel is now the world's fourth largest producer of steel and is among the top 10 United Kingdom exporters. How's that for success?
Those are great success stories. They are the great success stories for British industry. The success of the economy would become all too clear if only we could lift the veil of the razzmatazz of public argument.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, my noble friend Lord Laing and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, were worried by unemployment. That anxiety is prevalent among everyone. They were right to introduce the issue. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester drew our attention among other things to the help of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. He wanted prosperity now rather than in the future. That is an understandable aim. But
1690
the only way we can do that is to ensure that our economy and our businesses are successful. I have tried to show that, although there is much to be done, a lot has been done. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that if we had less unemployment, we would have less crime too. I am certain of that.
Since 1992, unemployment has fallen by over 600,000. That means that roughly 1,000 people a day have been taken off the unemployment register. In the past year, unemployment has fallen faster than in any other major European Community country, with the result that our unemployment rate is well below the European Community average. We now have the highest proportion of the population of working age actually in work of any major European Community country. They are not just part-time jobs—a point that worried the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Last year nearly three-quarters of the jobs created were full-time jobs.
A flexible labour force, vital though it is, is not enough. I agree with my noble friends Lord Prior and Lord Laing and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. There is no doubt that education and training will be the key to our future success. We have an astonishing inbuilt advantage. There are now about 350 million native English-speaking people in the world. English is now the official or semi-official language in 70 countries. By the year 2000, which is only five years away, it is estimated that 1,000 million people abroad will be learning English. Teaching English is already earning us £500 million a year.
High skills and high productivity are needed if we are to compete in an increasingly high technology world. They are not the only ways in which we can ensure that we remain competitive. They are also the route to high wages. It is not just the quality of the investment which is so important but the use to which that investment is put. That depends on the skills of the workforce and the way in which firms organise their investment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when he said that the future lies in a highly skilled, highly efficient and highly paid workforce.
I believe that we live in exciting times. Who would have believed, 10 or 15 years ago, that we would see the collapse of the Berlin Wall? Who would have believed that we would see the collapse of communism? We witnessed all of that. Of course those developments bring problems, but they also bring opportunities. Who would have thought that we would see the Far East, India and China blossom as they have. Then there is the astonishing part that IT—I apologise to the noble Baroness, I mean technology—can play, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said.
These are enormously exciting times. I am certain that with the record of our industry and the success of which it is capable, as it has shown within the past 12 months particularly, we stand a good chance of doing well in the future and of capturing some of those markets, of which there will be an enormous amount and where there will be great demand.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Prior: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend for the robust and skilful manner in which he

1691
summed up our debate. I thank all those who took part and I welcome especially my noble friend Lady Hogg. On this occasion I felt that everyone meant it when they said that she should have spoken longer and that we hope to hear her on many other occasions. That is generally said about every maiden speaker, and there is generally not a word of truth in it. But in this case there was. We welcome her appearance here today.
It has been an interesting debate. We heard the true voice of socialism. We heard the true voice of conservatism also, and it is just as well in this House that we should occasionally do so. In those circumstances, thanking everyone for taking part, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill
7.52 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Rights of second-named joint shareholders]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("() If a person dies during the requisite period at a time when he is named in the records of the society as a joint holder of any shares jointly held, this section shall have effect in relation to any later time as if he had never been so named.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Henley explained at Committee stage, the Bill has the full support of the Government. The Government proposed a number of amendments at that stage which were designed to ensure that the Bill achieved the stated aims of my noble friend Lord Hayhoe, and the honourable Member for Gloucester who launched the Bill in another place. The amendments, which were supported on all sides of your Lordships' House, would allow second-named or former second-named holders to benefit following the death of a first-named holder, on the creation of a joint account, the division of a joint account, or when there has been a change in the order of names within the account.
As my noble friend made clear at Committee stage, it is not the intention of the measures to enable individuals to claim two distributions by manipulating their accounts by, for example, splitting them up. The Government looked carefully at the wording of the Bill since Committee stage and considered whether further amendments could be made that would allow other categories of investor to benefit without jeopardising the subsequent passage of the Bill. In particular, we sought to take account of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
I am pleased to say that the Government propose one further amendment to address the case for a multiple account with, for example, a mother, father and son where both parents die. We intend to insert a new subsection into the proposed new Section 102A of the Building Societies Act 1986, which was approved by your Lordships' House at Committee stage. It will be inserted after the current subsection (3). The amendment
1692
has the effect that, where an account holder dies, the subsequent account holder moves up the scale. The amendment does not deal with the position of third and subsequent named account holders in situations other than death as to do so would make the Bill much more complex, particularly the provisions in regard to priority. However, it would address the case that the noble Lord raised in Committee; that is, where both parents die it would allow the son to qualify for distribution. I beg to move.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am delighted that the Government have been able to take account of one of the remaining anomalies which I detected at Committee stage. It would be churlish of me to ask about some of the other anomalies or spend time searching for others. I am therefore delighted to support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
7.55 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Incorporation of European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law]:
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 12 to 21 and insert:
("(2) The provisions set out in subsection (I) above shall—

(a) serve as an aid to the construction of primary and secondary legislation; and

(b) be taken into account in equity and at common law, so that effect may be given to them in any legal proceedings in the United Kingdom in accordance with the principles established by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

(3) For the purposes of this section the procedure at first instance and on appeal shall be governed by such Rules of Court or Practice Directions as may be made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, standing in my name on the Marshalled List, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7, which is purely consequential. If your Lordships feel able to agree to Amendment No. I, then Amendment No. 7 may be accepted by the House without a Division.
Although this amendment was discussed and voted on at Committee stage, I bring it forward for two reasons. First, the Division which took place on the amendment at Committee stage showed a difference of only one vote in the totals. I felt therefore that the House might have wished to reflect on the matter. Also, since the Committee stage debate, further examples have come to light which give grave cause for concern over the path down which the House is being asked to go.
During the Committee stage, I referred to a specific case which was well reported in the press. The Financial Times of 10th February this year said,
"Ministers and Opposition leaders united in the Commons yesterday to condemn a decision of the European Court of human rights ordering the Government to pay nearly £14,000 to a convicted drug trafficker".
I said at that time that if laws were to be respected and obeyed, they had to be understood by people and we had to carry people with us. That sort of decision was extremely undermining.
Since the Committee stage there have been further examples—I do not wish to detain or weary the House, and shall therefore limit myself to one example only—of which one occurred in the Daily Mail of Saturday 4th March. Under a heading,
"Blasphemy shock over erotic video of Christ",
the report went on to say that,
"Britain's blasphemy laws are under threat from Europe after a ruling that a film-maker can fight a ban on an erotic video about Jesus Christ. The Strasbourg-based European Commission of Human Rights announced last night that it believed Nigel Wingrove's right to freedom of expression had been breached"
It said it was referring the case to the European Court of Human Rights. If the court upholds the Commission's preliminary findings, as it does in the vast majority of cases, the Government may be forced to water down or scrap 400 year-old laws intended to protect religious beliefs. The article then goes on to give distasteful details of the film itself.
I am a son of the Manse. My father was a Congregational minister and instilled into me values which I have tried to maintain throughout my adult life and also in society wherever I had the opportunity to do so.. I know that somewhere he is watching this debate and listening to me. I would be betraying him if I did not say that enough is enough; we cannot sacrifice totally the control and sovereignty which we have at the moment. We must retain some control otherwise all our efforts to keep and improve standards in society today would be undermined without any control at all.
I beg your Lordships to think again on the matter. We owe it to ourselves and to our children—and, indeed, to their children—to maintain standards in society. We should not allow that sort of thing. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, is most entertaining and capable of making his argument sound fresh. However, I am not quite so certain about his draftsmanship. As the noble Lord spoke to Amendment No. 7, I think that it might be in order to look at it now. The noble Lord proposes to add to the Long Title the words, "in the disposition of'; that is, to replace the words,
"into the law of the United Kingdom",
with the words,
"in the disposition of the law of the United Kingdom".
In the presence of noble and learned Lords, I would be extremely rash to develop any argument at length. But I shall listen with interest to see whether any of them thinks that those words have any precise legal meaning and whether, if they were to be before them, they would know what to do with them.
The noble Lord's attitude to the law occasionally reminds me of that of King James I who believed very firmly that, if only one supplied a sufficiently large dose
1694
of common sense, all that legal learning would be unnecessary. I believe that the drafting of the noble Lord's amendment illustrates perhaps why that approach to the law really left something to be desired,
The same points could be made about the construction of Amendment No. 1. In paragraph (a) the noble Lord wants the provisions in subsection (1) to,
"serve as an aid to the construction of primary and secondary legislation".
Again, subject to correction, I wonder whether he has got that provision in the wrong category. There are rules which are aids to the construction of laws, such as that penal statutes are to be construed strictly. However, taking one law as an aid to the construction of another raises a certain number of technical problems. It does not lay down any primacy, provision or procedure for the interpretation of conflicts. In fact, I am not quite sure what it means. Putting law on the statute book which is drafted in such a way that one does not know what it means may tend to the enrichment of lawyers, but I doubt whether that was the noble Lord's motive.
I have the same reservations about the wording in paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 1. The amendment proposes that the subsection should,
"be taken into account in equity and at common law".
Does that, or does it not, have the same meaning as the usual legal words "have regard to"? I can imagine a court spending a good deal of time discussing that point. Indeed, I remember that we once did so in this House and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is remembering that occasion. At that time I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that the phrase meant almost nothing at all.
The noble Lord said a great deal about the defence of law, sovereignty and so on. But it is also a principle in which this country has taken a certain amount of pride that it does keep its international obligations. When it signs a treaty, it means it. We are discussing a treaty that was signed by a government of the noble Lord's own party under the leadership of the late Lord Attlee, whose attachment to the traditions of this country and of this House is not likely to be called into question. Therefore, if the treaty was so very terrible, I wonder why that government agreed to it and whether it has since that time had quite such terrible effects as the noble Lord suggests.
We have lived with the European Convention since 1950. We are not dead yet. If we could have remedies under it in the courts of this country instead of having to travel for them, it might make litigation a good deal cheaper. I hope that that is an object which the noble Lord and I might possibly have in common.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in what I hoped would be a very short debate. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was kind enough to refer to me, the least I can do is to support him; and, for the reasons that he gave, I gladly do so. I do not believe that there is any other occasion in our statute law in which we say that the provisions of a particular subsection shall,
"serve as an aid to the construction of primary and secondary legislation".

1695
Presumably that means the whole of our statute law and of the subordinate law made under it. Quite frankly, I think that that is a remarkable proposition which no person with experience in the interpretation of our laws could possibly accept.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, the amendment was moved with eloquence. As I listened to the noble Lord, I felt that he really believed that, if the amendment became law, it would clarify the law and rescue it from the hands of those nasty foreigners across the Channel. However, that is not the position at all. Whatever may be the intention of the noble Lord who moved it, it is a wrecking amendment. It takes the guts out of the Bill. But what are the guts of the Bill? They are that we should ensure that those men, women and children who live in this country and suffer an infringement of their human rights should have a remedy in this country in British courts. The amendment would, in fact, leave the law in precisely the same, but a slightly more muddled, condition than it is today.
If one looks at the judgments of their Lordships over a period of quite a long time, it will be seen that the sort of language which is used in the amendment finds its echoes in the words: "This is as far as we can go, but we can get no further". It is important that we should make available to every British citizen a remedy in this country if he thinks that his or his children's human rights have been infringed. That is precisely what the Bill provides. It is for that reason that we must have—and this has been said before—the words of Clause 1 in the Bill as follows:
"Section I of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms … [shall be] incorporated in the law of the United Kingdom, and shall be given full legal effect in accordance with this Act".
That enables a citizen to go to an English or a British court and obtain relief. The amendment would destroy that right and the very remedy that we are seeking to provide.
I have one further comment to make. One sometimes forgets that the European Convention assumes that there will be a national remedy available to the citizens of the countries which are party to it. For those who wish to know, I have in mind Article 13 of the convention. It assumes that the first remedy is with authorities similar to courts, if not the courts, but, nevertheless, in the courts of the country concerned. We do not have that provision now except on occasions by the ingenuity of the judges who manage to try to get as near as they can to legal incorporation. I say no more except that it would be a disaster if this amendment, however elegantly put forward, should be accepted.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, I support completely the thrust of this Bill. It is extremely important that the convention becomes part of domestic law for three very brief reasons. First, because I believe that judges in our national courts need to be able to deal with possible or alleged infringements of social and economic rights which they cannot deal with unless the European Convention is made part of domestic law. Secondly, I believe that it is right to adopt it because it seems quite absurd that many cases which could very
1696
well be dealt with by our national judges in this country have to go off to Strasbourg to be dealt with by a court consisting of judges from the Council of Europe, who necessarily take a very long time to do so.
Thirdly, it is necessary to make this convention part of our domestic law in order that we have uniformity between national disputes and those which fall within the European Union remit. I do not believe that we shall ever achieve full and satisfactory protection of human rights until the convention is made part of domestic law.
I say that as a preliminary. This amendment will emasculate what is intended by subsections (1) to (5) of the clause. It is much more satisfactory that the provisions of the Bill as it now stands should be adopted rather than that we should adopt a provision that what is set out in subsection (1) shall merely be as an aid to construction and taken into account. It is much more satisfactory that we should follow the terms of the Bill. For those reasons, I believe that the amendment would be a step towards emasculating the overriding effect of the Bill, and I am therefore opposed to it despite the moving arguments advanced by the noble Lord.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, these amendments appear in some respects preferable to the current Clause 1(2) and (3) in this Bill. The Government explained their position on provisions in this form at some length during the Committee stage of this Bill and in the debate on the similar amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway who is not in his place tonight.
Noble Lords: Yes, he is!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I express deepest apologies to my noble friend.
It may be helpful if I remind the House briefly of the Government's views on this point. The Government's position is that in construing legislative provisions, the courts should look at the words of those enactments first, and only in the case of ambiguity should they then look to see which of the possible meanings is consistent with the UK's international obligations. The amendments to Clause I under discussion change that position: they would enable the courts to have regard to the convention even where there was no such ambiguity. It is the Government's view that, where the words of Parliament are clear, they should be given effect to by the courts. It is not for the courts to decide that domestic enactments, whenever passed, should be interpreted so as to accord with developments in current European social policy as reflected by decisions of the court in Strasbourg. That really does constitute a shift of sovereignty.
So far as the common law is concerned, the amendment would appear to allow the courts to overturn long-established provisions where today Parliament might properly regard it as its function to change the law. The amendment would also appear to mean that challenges by way of judicial review to the exercise of discretion could pray-in-aid the convention. No Minister would set out to exercise his discretion so as to run foul of the convention; but the certainty is that there would be more applications for judicial review.

1697
The Government consider therefore that, even with these amendments, the Bill would amount to a significant change in the current position, in providing for the convention to be litigated in the courts where now it may not be. For the reasons set out in my speech at Second Reading and during Committee, the Government do not consider that such a change is necessary in order to secure the rights and freedoms protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. Nor do we believe that it would enhance the enjoyment of those rights and freedoms in this country.
I ask noble Lords to take note of the arithmetic that I made available to the House at Second Reading in that no citizen in this country is disadvantaged by non-incorporation of ECHR into our law.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it had not been my intention to intervene in this debate particularly in view of the very distinguished noble Lords who have already intervened. But it seems to me that the noble Baroness and my noble friend are labouring under a common misapprehension. They appear to believe that if this Bill were attenuated, that would somehow deprive the citizens of this country of the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. That is simply not the case. The citizens of this country have those rights already. The Government of this country have ratified the convention. The only question which remains is where and how they have to go in order to enforce their rights. As the noble and learned Lords, Lord Slynn and Lord Scarman have said, the issue is whether they can do that in the readily available courts of this country or whether they have to go to Strasbourg. I have not the slightest doubt that if we were to ask any of my former constituents or those of my noble friend where they would prefer to go in order to enforce their rights, the answer would be clear. Therefore it seems to me that both the noble Baroness and my noble friend are labouring under a complete misapprehension.
It appears that neither of them is very happy with some of the decisions of the European Court on Human Rights. If it encourages them, neither am I. If it comes to that, I am not very happy with some of the decisions of the domestic courts of this country, and I doubt whether anyone is. The fact is that sometimes there are conflicts of human rights and something has to give. It may not be the particular human right which we would prefer to endorse. The alternative would simply be to say that we shall do away with human rights altogether. Knowing the noble Baroness as I do, and certainly my noble friend over as many years as I do, I cannot believe that that is their intention.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree with me that the United Kingdom is 14th in the league table. Therefore there are 13 countries where the record for violation of ECHR law is greater than ours per 100,000 of the population. Therefore incorporation does not necessarily mean fewer visits to the European courts. The purpose of my
1698
objections on behalf of government is that it overrides sovereign parliaments if the judges wish it to if the ECHR is incorporated into English law.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, as regards the first point, I prefer not to comment on the human rights record of this country although I accept that there are very many countries with much worse records. But if it is true, as the noble Baroness said, that we have nothing to worry about, then I do not understand the concern about this Bill and why it should embarrass anyone in this country.
If the noble Baroness is saying that many decisions ought to be made by the political process, she may recollect that at Committee stage I said precisely that. I also said that where there is broad consensus that there are many decisions which we can take out of the political process because we all agree that there are certain standards of behaviour which the Government ought to observe towards its citizens, and those are the standards which are embodied in the European Convention. If the noble Baroness is saying that she would like to take those out and that she wished that we had never ratified the convention, I doubt whether the electors of this country would agree with her.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, on a point of order. Is your Lordships' House in order discussing this issue after the Minister has spoken? If we are going to have a free-for-all, let us have it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I apologise. The fault is mine.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I feel diffident about saying very much at this stage because we debated this amendment for over an hour in Committee. On that occasion I recall the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, adjudicating before the vote on the two amendments: the one which is now included in the Bill at Clause 1(3), which was drafted not by me, I hasten to say, but by a former deputy Parliamentary Counsel, which is why it is properly drafted—if I had done it, it would have been a mess—which is based upon the New Zealand Bill of Rights formula. That was one candidate. The other was the candidate which the noble Lord—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it in order for the noble Lord to be speaking now after the Minister?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes. It is the noble Lord's Bill.
Lord Dean of Beswick: As long as we are right.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful. As I was saying, one candidate is now part of the Bill as it was amended in Committee. The other candidate was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and is now before the House in this amendment. A vote was taken upon it. It is true that the result was narrow. I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying that I was heartened by the fact that those in favour of the Bill as it stands included several senior

1699
members of the judiciary. We have been greatly assisted this evening by the contributions from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Scarman and Lord Slynn of Hadley. Therefore, I feel diffident about saying very much about those two candidates.
However, I should like to comment first on the issue of sovereignty. The object of the Bill is partly to restore sovereignty to this Parliament. If this Parliament exercises its sovereign law-making powers by incorporating the convention into our law, sovereignty will in that way have been returned from Strasbourg to this country by Parliament. Since the amendment that was made in Committee prevents our courts from striking down inconsistent legislation—and expressly makes that clear in Clause 1(3)—the issue of sovereignty, with all respect to the Minister, simply does not arise.
Secondly, although I understand the attack that has been made on the European Convention and the Court of Human Rights, that issue does not arise. As several noble Lords have indicated, we are parties to the convention. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has not suggested that we should denounce the convention. The only issue is whether there should be effective domestic remedies by our own courts. The noble Lord would not succeed in his main object, which seems to be to repudiate the convention, if the amendment were to be pressed and voted upon.
Thirdly, the Minister tempts us with statistics about which country is the worst violater of human rights. One can do almost anything with statistics, but I respectfully suggest that what matters is the quality of the violations. I have been arguing cases in Strasbourg for more years than I like to recall, and again and again the pathology of human rights violations in this country involves over-broad ministerial or other discretion conferred under broad statutory powers, leading to violations of the convention, often inadvertently, by public officers. Again and again, for want of effective domestic remedies, the European Court has found this country to be in serious violation. Unfortunately, the quality of the breach has been as serious as the quantity of the violations. I have introduced the Bill in its present form to stop dirty linen being unnecessarily washed in public in Strasbourg.
I refer to the two examples that were given by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks: the case about the retrospective taking of the assets of a drug dealer, and the blasphemy case. Speaking for myself, I only wish that our courts had been able to deal with those two cases first instead of each of them going raw to Strasbourg to be dealt with by the European Court. Therefore, I very much hope that, in the light of everything that has been said this evening, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that he will not press it further.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for any infelicities which may exist in the drafting of the amendments. I have occasionally referred to the handicap under which the handful of us in this Chamber who are not legally qualified have to labour when dealing with such matters. However, there will surely be
1700
opportunities—possibly at Third Reading or in another place—to tidy up any amendments which may be defective. Therefore, I am not unduly concerned on that point.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer mentioned decisions of the courts here of which he was not very proud. Of course, miscarriages of justice have been acknowledged, but I ask your Lordships whether it is not time to stop knocking this country. Is it not time that we started asking ourselves in how many countries of the world would such miscarriages of justice even be acknowledged, let alone righted? I am very proud of this country. I do not want to sound vain in any way but, frankly, I feel that what I am doing tonight is standing up for the ordinary people of this country by not allowing matters to degenerate into a plethora of legal niceties, with abuse from other countries of a country of which I am very proud. I commend the amendment to the House.
8.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 34.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Lyell, L.

Balfour, E.

Marlesford, L.

Beloff, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Melville, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Milverton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Mountevans, L.

Craigavon, V.

Moyne, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renwick, L.

Donegall, M.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Selsdon, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hogg, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Kingsland, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas, V.

Wade of Charlton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Airedale, L.

[Teller]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Avebury, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Browne-Wilkinson, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Renton, L.

Fitt, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Scarman, L. [Teller]

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Hacking, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Tope, L.

Leigh, L.

Tordoff, L.

Woolf, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.34 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
In the Title:
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe moved Amendment No. 7:
Line 4, leave out ("into") and insert ("in the disposition of').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. It is entirely consequential upon Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Accommodation Level Crossings Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.

  Bilateral Aid Programmes
  Bilateral Aid Programmes
  Biodiversity: ODA Support
  Biodiversity: ODA Support
  World Summit for Social Development: Work Bank and IMF Commitments
  World Summit for Social Development: Work Bank and IMF Commitments
  China: Population Control
  China: Population Control
  Turkey: Alevi Minority
  Turkey: Alevi Minority
  Nuclear Weapons and Stability in Europe
  Nuclear Weapons and Stability in Europe
  Tuzla Airfield: Alleged NATO Report
  Tuzla Airfield: Alleged NATO Report
  Carers: Support
  Carers: Support
  War Crimes
  War Crimes
  Neighbour Noise
  Neighbour Noise
  Local Authority Capping Limits: Judicial Review
  Local Authority Capping Limits: Judicial Review
  HM Inspectorate of Pollution: Revised Charges
  HM Inspectorate of Pollution: Revised Charges
  Sustainable Development Panel Report
  Sustainable Development Panel Report
  Tourist Boards: Grants for 1995/96
  Tourist Boards: Grants for 1995/96
  Imperial War Museum Film Archives
  Imperial War Museum Film Archives
  MoD Housing: Disposal
  MoD Housing: Disposal